# Waste water reuse in France – Social perception of an unfamiliar practice

Patrice Garin, Marielle Montginoul, Benjamin Noury

► To cite this version:

Patrice Garin, Marielle Montginoul, Benjamin Noury. Waste water reuse in France – Social perception of an unfamiliar practice. Water Science and Technology: Water Supply, 2021, 21 (5), pp.1913-1926. 10.2166/ws.2020.242. hal-03053599

HAL Id: hal-03053599

https://hal.science/hal-03053599

Submitted on 11 Dec 2020

HAL is a multi-disciplinary open access
archive for the deposit and dissemination of sci-
entific research documents, whether they are pub-
lished or not. The documents may come from
teaching and research institutions in France or
abroad, or from public or private research centers.

L'archive ouverte pluridisciplinaire HAL, est
destinée au dépôt et à la diffusion de documents
scientifiques de niveau recherche, publiés ou non,
émanant des établissements d'enseignement et de
recherche français ou étrangers, des laboratoires
publics ou privés.

<figure><img src="image_1.png" /></figure>

Distributed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License
# Waste water reuse in France - Social perception of an unfamiliar practice

Accepté pour publication à Water Supply, septembre 2020

doi: 10.2166/ws.2020.242

## Authors

Patrice Garin, INRAE UMR G-Eau, Montpellier University, Montpellier, France

Marielle Montginoul, INRAE UMR G-Eau, Montpellier University, Montpellier, France

Benjamin Noury, INRAE UMR G-Eau, Montpellier University, Montpellier, France and SCP IMSIC, Aix en Provence, France

## Abstract

This article presents the results of a local survey conducted in a French wine-growing region where the public authorities were considering irrigating fields and green spaces with treated wastewater. 845 potential consumers were interviewed face-to-face close to their purchasing place. The majority were in favour of such a project and willing to use recreation areas and purchase local farm products irrigated with treated wastewater. However, we demonstrated the paucity of lay knowledge about treated wastewater. Simple information flyers have a significant effect on attitudes and intended behaviours. Nevertheless 20% of informed respondents said they would no longer buy such irrigated products. Given the lack of confidence in the public authorities' guarantee of food quality, they will be unlikely to change their minds. These unacceptable results to farmers may interest public authorities promoting these projects, still rare in France, in response to the increase in droughts.

## Graphical abstract

<figure><img src="image_2.png" /></figure>

## Keywords

Consumer attitude; wastewater reuse; social representation; French local survey; information effect; intended behaviour
## Highlights

* WWR an unfamiliar practice in France with no anchored social representation

* Information influences attitudes towards WWR of undecided people

* Attitudes and intended behaviours driven by disgust, environmental sensitivity, risk perception, and type of use

* Working women more reluctant than men to WWR; farmers rejecting WWR

* By communicating, farmers strengthen the social acceptability of their project but with a loss of customers

## Introduction

Every second year, half the French departments set up restrictions on use due to water scarcity (Benoit et al. 2017). Irrigation is then limited or even prohibited for weeks. Waste Water Reuse (WWR) is thus seen as an interesting solution in these territories, especially as it may be considered as participating in the circular economy and contributing to a so-called virtuous circle (Maurer 2018). However, only 0.2% of treated urban wastewater effluents are reused annually in France. This figure is lower than the European average (2.4%), and a long way from the practices of Italy and Spain, which reuse between 8 and 12% of their treated effluents (Aquarec 2006).

This situation can be explained firstly by the very restrictive regulatory framework. In France, thanks to the 1992 French Water Law, treated wastewater can be utilized but only to irrigate lands, "provided that its characteristics and manner of use are compatible with the requirements for the protection of public health and the environment" (decree of June 3, 1994). And the Order of June 25, 1994 defines four classes of water quality from A to D. Each class is associated with constraints of use, distance and terrain to be respected according to the crop, the area to be irrigated, and strict technical regulations for sprinkling irrigation – the dominant practice in France<fnref n="1" />. CEREMA identified only 63 schemes in operation in 2017 in France, including 35 for agricultural purposes, concerning much less than 1‰ of the 1.5 million hectares irrigated annually in the country. Most projects, less than 100 ha, were initiated before the 2000s in rare areas of a real acute lack of water (i.e. islands, coastal zones, etc.), to satisfy some agricultural uses close to wastewater treatment plants.

But this poor practice of WWR is also due to the French situation, where water has not been scarce (thanks also to other solutions to fight against water scarcity, like dams, canals, etc.). This second key reason (both reasons underlined by Lazarova & Brissaud (2007) and Cerceau (2015)) may explain the gradual change that appeared after 2000, with 40% of the new projects considered as addressing quantitative or qualitative water issues at the catchment level. There is now an annual growth rate of 7% in the number of projects (Franck-Néel 2020). WWR is emerging in public and/or national French debates as a way to cope with repeated droughts, especially to supply water to territories not yet covered by irrigation networks, and thus to crops previously not irrigated (wine, lavender, olive trees). For instance, the "Assises de l'eau", a national forum organized by the National Water Committee proposed in their conclusions (16 July 2020) to triple the WWR projects' numbers.

<footnote n="1">¹ See the following link for an in-depth presentation of the regulation: https://www.arpe-arb.org/files/20171130_2017Rutiliserleseauxtraites.pdf. A survey done by the public institution CEREMA (Centre for studies and expertise on risks, the environment, mobility and development) reports that the main treatment is "activated sludge" which accounts for 73% of WWR cases (against 44% of all waste water treatment plants in France), ahead of ponds 23% (against 28%), and membrane processes 3% (against 0.3%)" (Franck-Néel 2020).</footnote>
In this context, French Water Agencies are increasing pilot experiments, to explore the potentialities of this “new” method of satisfying increasing water needs. The French research and development project ‘SOPOLO’ (‘WWR a possible local solution?’) takes up part of these, looking to estimate wastewater demand, especially for irrigation purpose, in a Mediterranean fine wine-growing territory, “Pic Saint Loup”, located in the South of France (Figure 1). This vineyard is not irrigated yet. There is no WWR project for agriculture nearby. However, after several severe droughts during the last decade, more and more farmers are complaining about lack of water for irrigation. Recycling water from several sewage treatment plants is one of the options for the local public authority (‘Communauté de Communes du Grand Pic Saint Loup’ - CCGPSL), which is a partner in our research activity.

As irrigation can be viewed, from the point of view of economics, as an intermediate resource desired not in itself but for growing products later sold in the market, it seems important to assess the level of acceptance by customers of agricultural products (i.e. households). The aim of this paper is to present the attitudes of consumers, buying their fruit, vegetables and wines in this area, toward a WWR project and their intended behaviour concerning local irrigated foods and recreational areas. These elements will give indicators of the risk of consumers turning away from local production, which would jeopardize the viability of the WWR project.

In the first part, we provide a brief overview of the state of the art of WWR's social acceptability issues; we then present the research method before discussing the main results.

<figure><img src="image_3.png" /><figcaption>Figure 1. Pic Saint Loup Territory and location of the survey's sites.</figcaption></figure>

## State of the art of WWR social acceptability

“Social acceptability” is an "embarrassing" notion (Barbier & Nadaï 2015), but it was soon acknowledged as being a key element in the development of WWR in the same way as technical issues are (Baumann & Kasperson 1974). During the last forty years, there has been a lot of research investigating factors associated with public acceptance of recycled water in many countries (Fielding et al. 2018), but not in France. In addition, in this country, Berry et al. (2016) revealed difficulties related to the rise of controversies concerning all major infrastructure projects (in their case study on WWR, the interviewees refer in particular to the highly controversial project of a new airport ‘Notre Dame des Landes’). Water is not exempt from these controversies, whether for the justification of irrigation, the quality of drinking water (Hervé-Bazin 2014), or the public interest in new dams for irrigation (Sibertin-Blanc 2019). France has been marked by health scandals affecting food: mad cow disease, children's milk contaminated with salmonella, avian influenza, swine fever, meat and cheese
affected by Escherichia coli. Consumer associations regularly denounce the high levels of pesticide residues on fruit and vegetables, and question the government about emerging pollutants. This context creates a climate of mistrust in food chains that use industrial processes. Our hypothesis is that the treatment of wastewater for agriculture could be seen by consumers as one of these complex industrial processes, susceptible to malfunctions in the elimination of bacteriological, viral or chemical elements. However, WWR has so far received very little media attention in France: the media analysis conducted by Noury et al. (2019) for the period 2000-2017 for fifty national, regional and specialized press titles revealed that few press articles (156) mentioned WWR, with only 30% focusing on it. Most of these, published after 2010, mentioned WWR as a way to deal with repeated droughts without the need for new dams, a particularly sensitive subject, and one in conformity with the political trends of circular economy.

The main French reference to public views of water issues is the annual national barometer of opinions from a representative sample of 2,508 people, about water and wastewater services. In the questionnaire with over than one hundred questions, there are only three concerning people's acceptance of using recycled water and one on their knowledge of the water cycle (Centre d'Information sur l'Eau & TNS Sofres 2018). However, this national barometer reports general public opinions on the principle of recycling water, measuring "the extent to which a person believes that supporting the recycled water scheme will deliver positive outcomes" (Nancarrow et al. 2008); this is not an opinion on the desirability of a WWR project close to their homes. Nancarrow et al. (2008) had already documented a difference between supporting the concept of recycling water, because this attitude is in line with the values people stand for, and accepting personal contact or ingestion of food irrigated with such water, because this involves other intimate factors. More precisely, we wanted the answers to five questions, based on literature reviews (Dolnicar et al. 2010, Etale et al. 2020, Fielding et al. 2018), and the French national survey (Centre d'Information sur l'Eau & TNS Sofres 2018):

* What were the main components of the social representation of WWR in this area, if any?

* Were the inhabitants of this area in favour of irrigating agricultural or recreational areas with recycled water?

* Did their opinions vary depending on the agricultural products or recreational spaces considered?

* Did their opinions change if they were provided with basic information on the principles of water treatment and control?

* Was there consistency between their judgment on the appropriateness of a WWR project and their envisaged purchasing of agricultural products and use of recreational areas irrigated with recycled water?

The French national survey indicated that 52% of the population believed that wastewater was already directly used for drinking water, even though this is strictly forbidden by regulation, and so no treated wastewater is directly used for this purpose. This observation, combined with only the very few number of French WWR projects (no one near to Pic Saint Loup Region), and the low media visibility, led us to assume that the local population, too, had very little knowledge of the subject, and that it was an unfamiliar practice. According to social representation theory (Rateau et al. 2011), in this context of unfamiliarity, opinions and beliefs were probably not yet imbedded in knowledge collectively produced by a social group (i.e. a social representation). Identifying the "central core" of cognitive elements constituting the social representation of wastewater treatment, if any, was therefore of fundamental importance. The central core, anchored in people's minds is particularly difficult to change (Vergès 1992), even with an information campaign. On the contrary, the other
For this purpose, we used the theoretical framework proposed by the psychologist Ajzen (1991), who distinguished attitudes, the intended behaviour, and the actual behaviour. This framework has already been successfully used by Nancarrow et al. (2008) who established a structural equation model to predict communities' behavioural decisions in relation to the recycling of wastewater for uses involving close personal contact. This framework helped us to select a limited (but observed as relevant in Nancarrow et al. study) number of factors influencing attitudes, and expected behaviours to test their relevance to our case study and assess their sensitivity to an information action:

* *Disgust*. The extent to which a person experiences the “yuck” factor at fruit and vegetables irrigated with treated wastewater;

* *Perceived sanitary risk*. The sanitary quality of food products is controversial in France, where there have been high-profile health scandals. Moreover media alert concerning emerging pollutants in water (drug residues, pesticides, plastics, endocrine disruptors...) may be considered by consumers as another source of sanitary risky for WWR.

* *Declared sensitivity to environmental issues*, as part of a perceived social pressure, widely relayed by the media (promotion of recycling, sobriety, local sourcing).

* *Trust*. In France, there is both goodwill towards local agriculture, which supplies local markets, and a strong mistrust of intensive agriculture, which is widely reported in the media. Similarly, there is great confidence in the quality of domestic water but mistrust of private water companies (Hervé-Bazin 2014) and the majority of the population believes that water quality in the environment is poor and deteriorating<fnref n="2" />. Therefore, we want to measure consumer confidence in the ability of farmers and professionals of the water sector in the Pic Saint Loup area to control the WWR's health risks.

* *Confidence in technology*. We want to test whether general confidence in progress could influence attitudes towards WWR that is very scantily practised in France.

* *Information habits*. This factor has been added with regard to the study of Nancarrow et al. (2008) following the works of Dolnicar et al. (2010) who found a statistical positive change in the acceptance of recycled and desalinated water when respondents are regular newspaper readers. We thus aim to test whether information habits impact French attitudes to WWR.

## Methods

We conducted a survey in spring 2018 involving 845 consumers, carried out in 10 localities belonging to the CCGPSL (Figure 1), near the main markets and supermarkets of the area, before or after they had bought their foodstuffs. Most of them (84%) were inhabitants of the “Communauté de communes”, and 7% were living nearby. Interviews were carried out face-to-face in the street with the help of Master students from Montpellier University, wearing “Grand Pic Saint Loup community flags” to inspire confidence. All these people were questioned. When people came together, they were either interviewed independently (using two separate interviewers), or only one person was asked to respond. The refusal rates were very low (less than 10%). The sample did not include persons under the age of 15, as children are not responsible for household fruit and vegetable purchases. Apart from this bias, we afterwards checked that the sociodemographic characteristics of our sample of local inhabitants were close to that of the overall population (around 21.000 inhabitants in the area – see Supplementary Material for more details of this survey).

The questionnaire, which was designed for completion within ten minutes, comprised only closed questions, and was the same regardless of the level of information previously provided. First of all,

<footnote n="2">² For instance 75% of French people believes in 2018 that “the authorities take the utmost precautions to ensure that tap water quality standards protect consumers’ health”. 85% of French people are confident of tap water quality and drink it, at least occasionally, while 75% consider that the water in the river and aquifers is polluted (Centre d'Information sur l'Eau & TNS Sofres 2018) (see Figure 2).</footnote>
consumers were asked to give the 3 words they spontaneously associate with the expression "treated wastewater" and to rank them in order of importance, following the associative method (Rateau et al. 2011) to qualify the social representations of this resource, if any<fnref n="3" />. When people were unable to think spontaneously of 3-word associations, we did not insist. The rate of people who did not comply with this simple instruction is an indicator of the lack of social mobilization on the subject. A few people asked what treated wastewater was. After giving the word association instructions, we simply told them that it is water from sewage treatment plants.

The questionnaire continued in four different ways:

* A first sample with "no information" (N=204) simply went on with the questionnaire.

* For the "neutral information" group (N=310), people received a flyer on which were the characteristics of a WWR project, its objectives, who is involved and for which tasks. There was a very recognizable picture of the Pic Saint Loup at the top of the flyer to associate the project with the site. The rest of the text was not illustrated. The sentences did not include any value judgment (see the supplementary materials). A student read the main points of the flyer to make sure they were understood. Then the questionnaire went on.

* For the "persuasive information" group (N=176), the protocol was the same, but the flyer was organized as an advertising medium, highlighting the benefits of WWR through key words on a circle to emphasize the message of recycling.

* Finally, for the "commitment" group (N = 155), students presented to respondents the Pic Saint Loup's map asking the following question: "are you in favour of short circuits for food products? If yes, put a green sticker on your district of residence, otherwise a red one". This type of commitment to a cause was meant to put the respondent in a benign disposition with regard to new information in agreement with the cause to which he had just committed himself (Bernard & Joule 2004). The students then presented the flyer of the persuasive communication on WWR. Then the questionnaire went on.

The questionnaire then focused on consumers' acceptance of nine uses in the village they were living in. We insisted on this point to make sure that they felt directly concerned by the project: three "recreational" uses (golf, roundabout and green spaces) and six "agricultural" uses (shared gardens, market gardening, orchards, olive trees, vine and meadows for livestock). The uses were chosen among the options studied by the local public water authority, and to reflect the range of proximity of skin or mouth contact with the wastewater. We used a four-item system rated on a Likert scale, from strongly agree to strongly disagree, with no 'neutral' response to force an agreed or disagreed position, but with an option of "I don't know" for people who had no opinion.

Intended behaviour (purchasing, public garden visits) was assessed through one question per item (wine, fruit and vegetables, goat cheese, parks). Four answers were possible yes / no / maybe / I don't know (five for wine and cheese with "not usually buying"). Individuals were invited to rank their environmental sensitivity on a three-item level Likert scale (with the option to say "don't know"). They were then asked to agree / disagree / partially agree or give no opinion on four aspects (on disgust, on health risks, trust in water actors, trust in technology). They were asked about their media information habits<fnref n="4" />. The questionnaire ended with socio-demographic data.

<footnote n="3">³ Etale et al. (2020) asked the same type of question « recycled water » and « desalinated water ». Then they classified the words or expressions into 18 categories, which were tried in our case to follow (adding some categories due to the fact the question was not exactly the same), and we used it especially in our factorial analysis.</footnote>

<footnote n="4">⁴ This question was further interpreted in four categories on the following basis:</footnote>
## Results and Discussion

R1. There is no social representation of "treated wastewater".

The 3-words associations with the expression "treated wastewater" and their rank clearly indicated that citizens did not yet have social representation on it<fnref n="5" />:

* The vocabulary associated with "treated wastewater" was poor: the rareness indices (words cited only once by one person) and diversity indices (number of different responses) were 0.14 and 0.22 respectively before lemmatization<fnref n="6" />. For comparison, a similar study conducted on the word "water" obtained indices of 0.3 and 0.46 (Montginoul & Vestier 2018). Among the sample, 6% were unable to give a single word, 25% could give only one, 47% only two. These figures show that treated wastewater hadn't been much discussed among the population, which is at the origin of social representation (Rateau et al. 2011). This weakness of local knowledge and beliefs on this topic may be explained by the low media coverage of this subject in France.

* "Treated wastewater" was strongly associated with "wastewater treatment plant" (Table 1), indicating that citizens related this type of water to its producing entity. This sole strong association with any other, even in the first peripheral perimeter (lower rank but highly cited), indicates interviewers had difficulty in suggesting links. They were able to give only a neutral association, close to a synonym. We can however observe that 9% of the words (and then 21% of respondents) related "treated wastewater" to WWR, which seems high given the WWR French context.

* Well informed: at least 2 media read/listened daily

* Informed: at least 1 media read/listened daily

* Mildly informed: at least 2 media read/listened one or twice a week

* Poorly or not informed: the other answers

* No reply: when no answer to any media sources

<footnote n="5">⁵ We followed the hierarchical evocation method proposed by Vergès (1992) who differentiates four areas based on two criteria (the level of interest, and the frequency of occurrence): the "core" composed of consensual and fundamental elements characterized by coherence and stability, which are thus resistant to change), the "contrasting elements" (proposed by few people but with a high rank), and peripheral elements with more personal components (see Table 1 and Montginoul & Vestier (2018) for more details).</footnote>

<footnote n="6">⁶ Lemmatization consists of grouping similar expressions. For example, we have grouped the terms "connection", "pipeline", "water tower" and "pipe" under the same term "network", in the second step of the analysis, to build Table 1.</footnote>
<table><caption>**Table 1.** Structural analysis of 3-words/expressions associated with 'treated wastewater' (green+italic/black/red+bold for expressions positively/neutrally/negatively connoted) (expressed words – no reply excluded) (N= 845)</caption><thead><tr><th rowspan="3" style="text-align: left;"></th><th rowspan="3" style="text-align: left;">Frequency of occurrence</th><th colspan="2" style="text-align: center;">Level of interest</th></tr><tr><th style="text-align: left;">High (rank&lt;2)</th><th style="text-align: left;">Low (rank ≥ 2)</th></tr><tr><td style="text-align: left;">The "core":<br>Wastewater treatment plant (16%)<br><br>The "contrasting elements":<br>Recycling (9%), environment (7%), treated<br>wastewater (6%), sanitation (4%), pollution<br>(4%), dirt (3%), clean (3%), water (3%),<br>water saving (3%), positive opinion (2%),<br>process (2%), cost (2%), potable (2%),<br>septic tank (1%)<br><br>The "second perimeter":<br>Toilet (2%), disgust (1%),<br>network (1%), organic<br>pollutant (1%), chemical<br>process (1%), waste (1%),<br>etc.</td><td style="text-align: left;">The "first perimeter":<br>None</td></tr></thead><tbody><tr><th style="text-align: left;">High<br>(≥ 10%)</th><td style="text-align: left;">High (rank&lt;2)</td><td style="text-align: left;">The "core":<br>Wastewater treatment plant (16%)</td></tr><tr><th style="text-align: left;">Low<br>(&lt;10%)</th><td style="text-align: left;">Low (rank ≥ 2)</td><td style="text-align: left;">The "second perimeter":<br>Toilet (2%), disgust (1%),<br>network (1%), organic<br>pollutant (1%), chemical<br>process (1%), waste (1%),<br>etc.</td></tr></tbody></table>

R2. Citizens see WWR as an opportunity.

Contrasting elements (low frequency but high rank in Table 1) highlight different and less common ways of thinking. They refer here mainly to people who saw treated wastewater as an opportunity (recycling, water saving, etc.). There are very few elements negatively connoted (i.e. disgust, pollutions, dirt, cost...) appearing mainly in the "second peripheral perimeter" (low frequency and low rank), that is for only a few respondents and at a low rank.

R3. Citizens are well intentioned toward WWR, and even more so as the usage is far distant.

The survey questioned the attitude of citizens towards nine uses: three "recreational" uses (golf, roundabout and green spaces) and six "agricultural" uses (shared gardens, market gardening, orchards, olive trees, wine and meadows for livestock) (Figure 3).

<figure><img src="image_4.png" /></figure>
Figure 3. Attitudes towards different irrigation uses of treated wastewater.

These results support the patterns identified in the literature (Smith et al. 2018) on the relationship between attitude and uses: respondents were less likely to use treated wastewater for market gardening (70%) than for watering green spaces (90%). This distinction is also confirmed when consumer behavioural intentions were questioned: 83% would continue to frequent green spaces irrigated with treated wastewater while only 69% would continue to buy from grocers who sell fruits and vegetables irrigated with treated wastewater.

This corroborates the annual French national water survey in which a very large majority of individuals (75% in 2018) were ready to eat fruit and vegetable irrigated with WWR (Centre d'Information sur l'Eau & TNS Sofres 2018).

A statistical analysis was conducted to identify the sociotechnical variables that could be correlated with these attitudes, among those cited as relevant by various works in other countries (Fielding et al. 2018, Nancarrow et al. 2008, Smith et al. 2018). Table 2 presents results for the irrigation of the three typical uses for which behavioural intentions have been questioned during our survey.

<table><caption>**Table 2.** Chi-Square Test of Independence (p-value<5% in bold to highlight dependencies) between respondents' characteristics and their intention to consume products from WWR (in case of dependence, the positive or negative link is specified)</caption><thead><tr><th></th><th>Parks and gardens</th><th>Wine</th><th>Market gardening</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>Disgust</td><td>- (0.000)</td><td>- (0.000)</td><td>- (0.000)</td></tr><tr><td>Environmental sensitivity</td><td>+ (0.000)</td><td>+ (0.001)</td><td>+ (0.000)</td></tr><tr><td>Risk perception</td><td>- (0.003)</td><td>- (0.000)</td><td>- (0.000)</td></tr><tr><td>Information</td><td>(0.811)</td><td>+ (0.007)</td><td>+ (0.001)</td></tr><tr><td>Trust in technologies</td><td>+ (0.021)</td><td>(0.106)</td><td>(0.142)</td></tr><tr><td>Gender</td><td>(0.744)</td><td>(0.383)</td><td>Women - (0.019)</td></tr><tr><td>Age</td><td>(0.409)</td><td>(0.259)</td><td>(0.092)</td></tr><tr><td>Information habits</td><td>(0.557)</td><td>(0.418)</td><td>(0.438)</td></tr></tbody></table>

Disgust, environmental sensitivity and risk perception influenced attitudes for all three uses. These results are in line with the synthesis of Fielding et al. (2018) in several dozen studies on the most discriminating factors of attitudes for non-potable uses. In this literature review, disgust, and the perception of health risks were cited as the main factors explaining unfavourable attitudes, while the claim of environmental sensitivity characterized favourable opinions. In our study, people who said they were disgusted with the thought of eating a vegetable irrigated with treated wastewater were unfavourable to all WWR projects; those believing there was no risk in using treated wastewater to irrigate vineyards were more favourable than others to all the WWR projects. The more environmentally sensitive the respondents, the more they were in favour of reusing wastewater to irrigate parks and gardens.

In our survey, confidence in technology also acted on WWR attitudes, but the probability of independence is less significant between these two variables. A gender-related effect is also observed but only for market gardening, for which men were more favourable to WWR than women were. In the synthesis of Fielding et al. (2018), the other variables (age, gender, confidence in technology) had varying effects across studies. When they have a significant effect, it is the same as the one observed in our study.

R4. Citizens trust neutral information more than positive information.
Information seemed to influence attitudes (Table 3), but not uniformly: it varied according to the type of use and the type of communication.

<table><caption>**Table 3.** Attitude, disgust at, and perception of remaining risks of WWR, according to the type of information provided to the interviewees</caption><thead><tr><th></th><th></th><th>No information<br>N = 204</th><th>Neutral<br>N = 310</th><th>Persuasive<br>N = 176</th><th>Commitment<br>N = 155</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td rowspan="5">Recreational<br>uses<br>(p. value 0.001)</td><td>Strongly disagree</td><td>2%</td><td>3%</td><td>3%</td><td>5%</td></tr><tr><td>Disagree</td><td>11%</td><td>7%</td><td>6%</td><td>13%</td></tr><tr><td>Agree</td><td>21%</td><td><strong>16%</strong></td><td>27%</td><td>19%</td></tr><tr><td>Strongly agree</td><td>64%</td><td><strong>72%</strong></td><td>62%</td><td>61%</td></tr><tr><td>No opinion</td><td>1%</td><td>2%</td><td>2%</td><td>1%</td></tr><tr><td rowspan="5">Agricultural<br>uses<br>(p. value 0.001)</td><td>Strongly disagree</td><td>8%</td><td>8%</td><td><strong>4%</strong></td><td>8%</td></tr><tr><td>Disagree</td><td>22%</td><td>12%</td><td>17%</td><td>18%</td></tr><tr><td>Agree</td><td>28%</td><td><strong>23%</strong></td><td>32%</td><td>29%</td></tr><tr><td>Strongly agree</td><td>37%</td><td><strong>55%</strong></td><td>44%</td><td>44%</td></tr><tr><td>No opinion</td><td>3%</td><td>2%</td><td>3%</td><td>2%</td></tr><tr><td rowspan="5">Disgust<br>(p. value<br>0.02)</td><td>Yes</td><td>16%</td><td>14%</td><td>14%</td><td>14%</td></tr><tr><td>Mitigate</td><td>19%</td><td>13%</td><td>7%</td><td>15%</td></tr><tr><td>No</td><td>63%</td><td>70%</td><td>80%</td><td>65%</td></tr><tr><td>No opinion</td><td>2%</td><td>3%</td><td>0%</td><td>6%</td></tr><tr><td>Yes</td><td>25%</td><td>27%</td><td>32%</td><td>26%</td></tr><tr><td rowspan="5">Sanitary<br>risks<br>(p. value<br>0.23)</td><td>Mitigate</td><td>26%</td><td>18%</td><td>18%</td><td>19%</td></tr><tr><td>No</td><td>41%</td><td>47%</td><td>43%</td><td>41%</td></tr><tr><td>No opinion</td><td>7%</td><td>7%</td><td>7%</td><td>15%</td></tr></tbody></table>

Information described as neutral significantly strengthened the favourable attitudes for all uses. This result is in line with Fielding et al. (2018) who wrote in their synthesis, "providing factual information about recycled water increases knowledge about, and acceptance of, recycled water". This impact may be explained by the mention of the health authority's controls exclusively on this communication medium. In the national survey, 83% of the population trusted the authority to control water quality. The so-called persuasive information changed the opinion of the very opposed participants, but only as far as agricultural uses were concerned. This brochure explicitly mentioned agriculture in its slogan "WWR - a resource for our agriculture", and as a local solution to food insecurity. Finally, in the commitment scheme, participants gave their opinion on local food systems, as a preparatory act, before being subjected to persuasive information. The results do not validate the scientific hypotheses (Bernard & Joule 2004) assuming that the effects of the information could be reinforced by an act of commitment. There was even a slight decrease in positive opinions compared to the control group ('no information'). The relevance of the preparatory act must be questioned.

Information seemed to have some influence on the people who answered "mitigate" when we asked them if they were disgusted by the idea of eating a fruit or vegetable irrigated with treated wastewater. With information (whatever its nature), the rate of these hesitating persons decreased significantly (p<0.02). We can assume that many among them were completely unaware of the process of recycling water. The flyer was sufficient to convince them that the treatment had "purified" the water. However, when a person claimed to be disgusted, he or she was in the realm of emotion, not reasoning, and information did not matter. These findings are in agreement with the work of Rozin et al. (2015) who studied the disgust at drinking treated wastewater.
Information had less of a reassuring effect on the perception of risk. When people first read the flyers, the rate of persons hesitant about their perception of sanitary risk decreased but not significantly. If information seemed to reassure some of the undecided, others feared contagion or did not express an opinion. We assume that the multiplication of recent health and food scandals (mad cow disease, meat and milk quality, pesticides residues in food, etc.) aroused a great deal of suspicion of the reassuring information provided by public bodies.

The remaining sanitary risk perception was significantly and positively correlated with i) disgust at the thought of eating food irrigated with treated wastewater, and ii) the lack of trust in water actors (at the 0.001% threshold). Disgust and risk perception seemed independent of environmental sensitivity, and of general confidence in technology.

Media consumption habits (radio, TV, web, newspapers), too, seemed to influence the effect of information among those who had received useful information through the media; their number increased the probability of responding "strongly agree" rather than "agree" (at the 1% threshold) by 25 percentage points. This supports an Australian study (Dolnicar et al. 2010) on WWR, which pointed out that the cause of heterogeneity in information responses was rather the experience of information processing than of socio-demographic data.

R5. A strong cohesion between attitudes and behavioural projections, but some apparent contradictions.

The study also found a significant correspondence between attitudes and behavioural intentions (p-value= 0.000). People in favour of WWR would not change purchasing habits if they learned that vineyards are irrigated with treated wastewater. A reassuring effect of the information was also noted. Consumers were less hesitant when they had information, but it did not greatly change unfavourable opinions.

<table><caption>**Table 4.** Effect of information on attitudes and purchasing intentions for irrigated wine with treated wastewater (sample without people declaring they never buy wine)</caption><thead><tr><th rowspan="2">Attitudes</th><th colspan="4">No information (N = 191)</th><th colspan="4">Information (N= 556)</th></tr><tr><th>No purchase</th><th>Don't know</th><th>Purchase</th><th>Total</th><th>No purchase</th><th>Don't know</th><th>Purchase</th><th>Total</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>Highly unfavorable</td><td>6,8%</td><td>0,5%</td><td>0,5%</td><td>7,9%</td><td>7,0%</td><td>0,5%</td><td>0,7%</td><td>8,2%</td></tr><tr><td>Rather unfavorable</td><td>12,6%</td><td>2,6%</td><td>8,4%</td><td>23,6%</td><td>8,1%</td><td>1,8%</td><td>4,6%</td><td>14,4%</td></tr><tr><td>Rather favorable</td><td>3,7%</td><td>2,1%</td><td>23,0%</td><td>28,8%</td><td>3,5%</td><td>1,1%</td><td>23,5%</td><td>28,0%</td></tr><tr><td>Highly favorable</td><td>2,1%</td><td>0,5%</td><td>33,5%</td><td>36,1%</td><td>1,1%</td><td>0,9%</td><td>45,4%</td><td>47,3%</td></tr><tr><td>Don't know</td><td>0,5%</td><td>2,6%</td><td>0,5%</td><td>3,7%</td><td>-</td><td>0,5%</td><td>1,2%</td><td>2,1%</td></tr><tr><td>Total</td><td>25,7%</td><td>8,4%</td><td>66,0%</td><td>100,0%</td><td>20,0%</td><td>4,7%</td><td>75,3%</td><td>100,0%</td></tr></tbody></table>

The results presented in Table 4 for wine purchases were similar for vegetables or cheeses from breeding that uses fodder watered with wastewater (cf. the graphical abstract). Without information, 22% to 30% of consumers would switch shops if they knew that the shop buys its products from a farmer who irrigates with treated wastewater. With information, this rate was around 20%.

Again, disgust and the perception of persisting sanitary risk played a major role in the intention of purchasing food (p-value 0.01). Two thirds of those who would change shops (for vegetables, goat cheese, wine) said they were disgusted by the idea of eating such fruit and vegetables; two thirds also thought there was a health risk with WWR. As our flyers had an effect only on those who were most ignorant of WWR and hesitant about expressing disgust and about risks, purchase intentions changed little with the information, in the case of this profile of consumers mainly.
Table 4 also reveals complex judgments. 5.8% of the uninformed and 4.6% of the informed were from favour to very much in favour of water recycling for irrigating food products, as citizens, but not as consumers. Conversely, 8.9% of uninformed and 5.3% of informed persons opposed to it as citizens, would tolerate it as consumers. In addition, depending on the products, the motivation of between 20 and 25% of those who would change shops was unknown, since they said they were not disgusted, and that they did not perceive risk of contagion. The very limited questionnaire did not allow for a more in-depth analysis of their motivations.

The cohesion between attitudes in favour of WWR for public parks was less consistent with the envisaged frequenting of them if they were irrigated with reclaimed water (see supplementary material). Information did not significantly influence this level of inconsistency. A majority of those in favour of this use of WWR would use the parks if the project were carried out, but the actions of a larger part of the population would not be consistent with their opinions. Among those who would no longer use the parks, three quarters of the people were in favour of this use. Conversely, three quarters of the few initial opponents would eventually continue to frequent these places. Feelings of disgust and health risks could not explain these contradictions between attitudes and intended behaviours.

These apparent inconsistencies confirm the need to go beyond the stated intentions of action by interviewees, the level at which most of the work cited in the literature stops (e.g. Nancarrow et al. 2008). Between stated intention and actual action there are often great differences, as has been demonstrated regarding other pro-environmental behaviours (de Leeuw et al. 2015). It will be necessary to go as far as the observation of actual actions, i.e. here the actual decision to eat or buy food in a taste test for example.

Using a factorial analysis (of the 802 respondents who replied to all questions participating in the factorial analysis), we have thus clearly distinguished two opposing sub-populations: half of the total respondents (54%) were in favour to very much in favour of the development of WWR, for all uses. They would not change their consumption habits (more than 80% of them), they were not disgusted (95%), they did not perceive any health risks (67%), they were rather more confident of technological progress (62%), and sensitive to environmental issues (96%). This group is composed of people who had previously received information on WWR (81%), and for 41% of them a neutral kind.

On the other hand, a group representing 17% of the population is made up of people opposed to WWR (both in opinion and intention). Including 22 (out of 23) of the farmers who replied to all questions; this group comprises a majority of retired people (53%), especially more than 75 years old (24%). It includes the more heterogeneous population (cf. the hierarchical clustering - more details in supplementary materials), but is highly characterized by persons who have difficulties in associating words to "treated wastewater" (60% did not give three words, 20% of them did not come up with any word).

The last group comprises 28% of the population (37% belongs to the "no information" group, of which only 31% was given "neutral" information); they were resistant to WWR, preferring to stop consuming products that result from the WWR (for more than 50% of them). This group comprised "mitigated" people (on disgust, health risks, technology, and confidence in decision-makers), and a significant proportion of them (12%) declared themselves not very sensitive to the environment, but were concerned about health problems (the word "contamination" was cited by 28%). This includes a majority of women (62%), people between 30 and 44 years of age (28%), working people (61%), and those less open to the media (27%). The great majority of them (80%) had a considerable idea of "treated wastewater" (only 2% did not have anything to say).
R6. A change in purchasing habits with a great economic impact on local producers.

The threat of a 20% (26% when no information) drop in potential local buyers would not be acceptable in an agricultural and wine-growing area such as Pic Saint Loup. We did a reconstitution of this work, at the invitation of a mayor. The few winegrowers present confirmed that selling to local customers was essential to the profitability of their business. They stated that they could not accept a 20% reduction in their clientele.

The reduction of current discharges from treatment plants was of interest to drinking water managers (i.e. reducing the risks of aquifer pollution in this karstic area). But the result of this study reinforced other weaknesses in the cost recovery and economic profitability of the WWR project pointed out by other studies conducted in the 'SOPOLO' project. This explains why the Pic Saint Loup community of communes decided not to carry out the project in the near future.

The next research actions on this topic will include i) a wider range of factors explaining attitudes towards WWR, ii) an extension of the sample to people with a sound knowledge of wastewater treatment (professionals and students), iii) an extension of the study of behaviours with tasting tests of products resulting from irrigation with treated wastewater, and iv) feedback on the behaviour of consumers of agricultural production from some projects currently implemented in France.

Conclusions

WWR projects in France are still rare, and are only rarely the subject of social acceptability studies. In our survey, disgust and the perception of persisting sanitary risks clearly explained the reluctance of 5% to 30% of our sample of consumers. We found three groups of consumers: the promoters of WWR (50%) significantly more sensitive to the environment, and more confident in the technology and in water managers; the opponents (20%) fearing sanitary risks; and the reluctant partly reassured by prompt information on this little known subject. WWR project leaders will see this as encouragement to launch intensive targeted information campaigns. But the reluctant group, significantly less open to the media and made suspicious by health scandals, will be difficult to convince. This study needs to be deepened, including taste tests, as some inconsistencies between attitudes, food buying intentions, disgust, and perceived risks have emerged among a significant minority.

Acknowledgements

We would like to thank the Rhone-Mediterranean Water Agency for its financial support of the SOPOLO project, the Pic Saint Loup Community for its encouragement, the students of 2017-2018 class in the first year of the "Water" master's program at University of Montpellier who helped to carry out the surveys, and the consumers who agreed to answer.

References

Ajzen, I. (1991) The theory of planned behavior. *Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes* **50**(2), 179-211.

Aquarec (2006) Integrated Concepts for Reuse of Upgraded Wastewater, Report on Integrated Water Reuse Concepts. 184 p.

Barbier, R. & Nadaï, A. (2015) Acceptabilité sociale : partager l'embarras (Social Acceptability: Sharing the Embarrassment). VertigO - la revue électronique en sciences de l'environnement [En ligne] **153**.

Baumann, D.D. & Kasperson, R.E. (1974) Public acceptance of renovated waste water: Myth and reality. *Water Resources Research* **10**(4), 667-674.
Ben Maïd, A., Devaux, J. & Thao Khamsing, W. (2014) Ressources en eau : perception et consommation des Français (*Water resources: French perception and consumption*). Commissariat général au développement durable, Paris, 82 p.

Benoit, G., Berlizot, T., Bortolotti, S., Brugière, Y., Domallain, D., Jourdier, G., Madignier, M.-L., Mailleau, C., Piaton, H., Pinçonnet, D., Renoult, R. & Rocq, S. (2017) Eau, agriculture, et changement climatique : Statu quo ou anticipation ? Ministère de l'agriculture et de l'alimentation and CGAAER, 66 p.

Bernard, F. & Joule, R.V. (2004) Lien, sens et action : vers une communication engageante (*Relationship, meaning and action: towards communication with commitment*). *Communication et organisation* **24**.

Berry, P., Strosser, P. & Berge, M. (2016) Investigating the public acceptance of wastewate reuse at the Vendée greenfield demonstration site. *ACTeon*, 47 p.

Centre d'Information sur l'Eau & TNS Sofres (2018) Baromètre C.I.EAU / TNS SOFRES - 22ème édition : "Les Français et l'eau", enquête nationale 2018 (Barometer C.I.EAU / TNS SOFRES - 22nd edition: "*The French and water*", national survey 2018). p.

Cerceau, J. (2015) NOW MMA Livrable 4.2 - Acceptabilité sociale des projets de réutilisation des eaux usées (NOW MMA Deliverable 4.2 - Social Acceptability of Wastewater Reuse Projects). ARMINES/Ecole des Mines d'Alès, 40 p.

de Leeuw, A., Valois, P., Ajzen, I. & Schmidt, P. (2015) Using the theory of planned behavior to identify key beliefs underlying pro-environmental behavior in high-school students: Implications for educational interventions. *Journal of Environmental Psychology* **42**, 128-138.

Dolnicar, S., Hurlimann, A. & Nghiem, L.D. (2010) The effect of information on public acceptance – The case of water from alternative sources. *Journal of Environmental Management* **91**(6), 1288-1293.

Etale, A., Fielding, K., Schäfer, A.I. & Siegrist, M. (2020) Recycled and desalinated water: Consumers' associations, and the influence of affect and disgust on willingness to use. *Journal of Environmental Management* **261**, 110217.

Fielding, K.S., Dolnicar, S. & Schultz, T. (2018) Public acceptance of recycled water. *International Journal of Water Resources Development*, 1-36.

Franck-Néel, C. (2020) Réutilisation des Eaux Usées Traitées. Le panorama français (*Reuse of Treated Wastewater. The French panorama*). Cerema, 23 p.

Hervé-Bazin, C. (2014) Boire en eaux troubles (*Drinking in turbid waters*). *Communication et organisation* **45**, 127-138.

Lazarova, V. & Brissaud, F. (2007) Intérêt, bénéfices et contraintes de la réutilisation des eaux usées en France (*Interest, benefits and constraints of wastewater reuse in France*). *Revue de l'Eau, l'Industrie et les Nuisances* **299**, 43-53.

Maurer, H. (2018) L'économie circulaire dans le petit cycle de l'eau : la réutilisation des eaux usées traitées (*Circular economy in the small water cycle: reuse of treated wastewater*). Institut National de l'Economie Circulaire, 16 p.

Montginoul, M. & Vestier, A. (2018) Smart metering: A water-saving solution? Consider communication strategies and user perceptions first. Evidence from a French case study. *Environmental Modelling & Software* **104**, 188-198.

Nancarrow, B.E., Leviston, Z., Po, M., Porter, N.B. & Tucker, D. (2008) What drives communities' decisions and behaviours in the reuse of wastewater. *Water Science & Technology* **57**(4), 485-491.

Noury, B., Pascual Espuny, C. & Ferrand, N. (2019) How can participation and communication support decisions towards wastewater reuse projects? A methodological proposal. Conference on Communication and Environment (COCE) (ed), p. 14, University of British Columbia, Vancouver, Canada.

Rateau, P., Moliner, P., Guimelli, C. & Abric, J.C. (2011) Social representation theory. *Handbook of theories of social psychology* **2**, 477-497.

Rozin, P., Haddad, B., Nemeroff, C. & Slovic, P. (2015) Psychological aspects of the rejection of recycled water: Contamination, purification and disgust. *Judgment and Decision Making* **10**(1), 50-63.
Sibertin-Blanc, C. (2019) Formal Analysis of the Conflicting Play of Actors Regarding the Building of a Dam. In: *Law, Public Policies and Complex Systems: Networks in Action*. Boulet, R., Lajaunie, C. and Mazzega, P. (eds), pp. 177-202, Springer International Publishing, Cham.

Smith, H.M., Brouwer, S., Jeffrey, P. & Frijns, J. (2018) Public responses to water reuse – Understanding the evidence. *Journal of Environmental Management* **207**, 43-50.

Vergès, P. (1992) L'évocation de l'argent : une méthode pour la définition du noyau central d'une représentation. *Bulletin de Psychologie* **45**, 203-209.
Supplementary materials
# The questionnaire

Names of interviewers: 1

2

Interview No.: Location:

## Irrigation with Treated Wastewater (TWW)

Hello, we are working for the Community of Communes of the Pic Saint Loup (show letter) to study the possibilities of developing irrigation with treated wastewater on the territory. We are students in the 1st year of the 'Master EAU' at the University of Montpellier. Thank you for giving us a few minutes to answer this questionnaire.

Gender: M / F

District of living:

1. If you are told "Treated Waste Water" (TWW), what are the 3 words that come to mind?

<table><tr><td>Words</td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr></table>

Rank them from most important (1) to least important (3)

<table><tr><td>Words' rank</td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr></table>

If the question is "what is treated wastewater": simply say that it is wastewater that is treated in treatment plants.

2. In your opinion, what type of water is used to irrigate in the districts' community? (show them, tick if yes)

☐ River water

☐ Borehole water

☐ Regional hydraulic networks (BRL)

☐ Lake

☐ Treated wastewater

☐ Drinking water

☐ Don't know

## Depending on the protocol, inform / engage or not on REUSE at that time

3. If information: Would you say this information was for you:

☐ indispensable

☐ useful

☐ not very useful

☐ useless

☐ no opinion

4. Here is a list of places or crops that can be watered. Tell me if you are in favour or against, with mixed or no opinion, for gardeners or farmers from your district to use TWW to water them (tick and show the list for the person to read it with you).

<table><thead><tr><th></th><th>Very favourable</th><th>Rather yes</th><th>Rather no</th><th>Very opposed</th><th>No opinion/don't know</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>Public parks and gardens</td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>Golf</td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>Shared gardens</td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>Traffic circles</td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>Market gardening</td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>Orchards (apricot, peach, apple)</td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>Olive trees</td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>Meadows for farm animals</td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>Wine</td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr></tbody></table>

5. If you learned that a public space was irrigated with TWW, would you visit it less often?

☐ Yes

☐ No change

☐ Maybe

6. If you find out that your fruit and vegetable seller is sourcing fruit irrigated with TWW, without changing their prices, will you continue to go there?

☐ Yes, no change

☐ There are some products I won't buy anymore

☐ I'll go

elsewhere

(which: )
7. If you learned that one of the wines from the Pic Saint Loup area that you like is irrigated with TWW, would you continue to buy it?

☐ Yes

☐ No

☐ Don't know

☐ No wine consumer

8. If you learned that a cheese you like is produced in a farm where the meadows are irrigated with TWW, would you continue to buy it?

☐ Yes

☐ No

☐ Don't know

☐ No cheese consumer

9. On a scale from 1 to 4, how would you rate your environmental sensitivity to the environment?

☐ 1 (Insensitive)

☐ 2 (Not very sensitive)

☐ 3 (Sensitive)

☐ 4 (Very sensitive)

<figure><img src="image_5.png" /></figure>

Don't know

<table><thead><tr><th>10. Give your opinion on each of the following statements:</th><th>Yes</th><th>No</th><th>Mixed</th><th>Don't know</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>Technology will always help to find solutions to meet our water needs.</td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>People who decide to irrigate with TWW are as sensitive as I am to health issues.</td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>The idea of eating a fruit or vegetable that has been irrigated with TWW disgusts me.</td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>I think there is no risk in using treated wastewater for irrigation (<span style="color:red;">Caution</span>, <span style="color:red;">tick Yes if no perceived risk, as this indicates agreement with this 'negative' sentence</span>).</td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr></tbody></table>

11. Can you tell us what your sources of information are? (by showing them the list and checking with them)

<table><thead><tr><th></th><th>Daily</th><th>1 to several times a week</th><th>1 to 2 times a month</th><th>Never or very rarely</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>Newspaper or paper magazine</td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>TV News</td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>Web information</td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>Radio</td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr></tbody></table>

12. Do you read the Journal intercommunal "Grand Pic Saint Loup"?

☐ regularly

☐ rarely

☐ never

13. Do you consult the website of the districts' community https://www.cc-grandpicsaintloup.fr/ :

☐ regularly

☐ rarely

☐ never

14. What is your year of birth?

15. What is your status?

☐ Retired

☐ Student

☐ Active

☐ Stay-at-home parent

☐ Not working (unemployed, other)

16. What is or has been your occupation?

☐ Farmer

☐ Artisan

☐ Shopkeeper or business owner

☐ Executive or senior intellectual profession

<figure><img src="image_6.png" /></figure>

☐ Intermediate profession (e.g. nurse, teacher, category B official, etc.)

☐ Employee

☐ Worker

☐ None
## Persuasive information (positive flyer)

<figure><img src="image_7.png" /></figure>

## Neutral information (neutral flyer)

<figure><img src="image_8.png" /></figure>

L'utilisation des eaux usées traitées est autorisée en France pour l'irrigation depuis 2010.

**Comment est utilisée l'eau usée traitée ?**

Arrosage des espaces publics, des jardins, des terrains de golfs...
Irrigation des champs (pommes de terre de Noirmoutier)

**Comment l'eau usée est traitée ?**

L'eau subit une filtration et une désinfection pour enlever les contaminants et les micro-organismes.

**Quels sont les enjeux ?**

Economie d'eau
Région aride (canal BRL)
Réutilisation des nutriments
présents dans l'eau

**Quelle est la qualité requise ?**

après traitement, l'eau doit avoir une qualité proche de ce qui est requis pour l'eau de baignade.

**Où utilise-t-on de l'eau usée traitée ?**

Floride
Berlin
Espagne
Noirmoutier

Tunisie
Israël
Golfs (Grande Motte)

**Existe-t-il des contrôles ?**

Des contrôles de la qualité sont effectués par l'Agence Régionale de Santé et la Direction Régionale de l'Environnement de l'Aménagement et du Logement.

## Commitment

Protocol for the Commitment Act:

1) When presenting the Pic Saint Loup districts' community map, ask the question "Are you in favour of short circuits for food products?"

2) If yes, put a green sticker on the map, otherwise put a red sticker on the same map.
Then the interviewer quickly present the positive communication flyer.
The SoPoLo project interviewed 845 people. This database will be used to study the attitudes and arguments of this sample towards products from agriculture irrigated with treated wastewater. All the people were interviewed in the Grand Pic Saint Loup community of communes.

The descriptive statistics are presented here by comparing them with the statistical data available from the national statistical institute (INSEE). INSEE delivers precise data every seven years, which explains our choice: to compare our results from the survey made in 2018 to the statistics available for the year 2014.

The sample of the population is evenly distributed with 51% of women interviewed and 48% of men (for people for which we have the information see Table 5), which is roughly the same as we find in the total population belonging to the studied area (Table 6).

<table><caption>Table 5. Distribution of respondents by gender and age.</caption><thead><tr><th>Age groups</th><th>Woman</th><th>Man</th><th>Uninformed</th><th>Total</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>15 to 29 years old</td><td>26</td><td>47</td><td></td><td>73</td></tr><tr><td>30 to 44 years old</td><td>88</td><td>79</td><td></td><td>167</td></tr><tr><td>45 to 59 years old</td><td>142</td><td>83</td><td>1</td><td>226</td></tr><tr><td>60 to 74 years old</td><td>130</td><td>149</td><td>5</td><td>284</td></tr><tr><td>75 years old and over</td><td>46</td><td>43</td><td></td><td>89</td></tr><tr><td>Uninformed</td><td>5</td><td>1</td><td></td><td>6</td></tr><tr><td>Total</td><td>437</td><td>402</td><td>6</td><td>845</td></tr></tbody></table>

<table><caption>Table 6. Distribution of respondents by gender and age in the 2018 survey and for the general population (INSEE 2014).</caption><thead><tr><th rowspan="2">Age groups</th><th colspan="2">Man</th><th colspan="2">Woman</th></tr><tr><th>2014</th><th>2018</th><th>2014</th><th>2018</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>0 to 14 years old</td><td>19%</td><td>0%</td><td>17%</td><td>0%</td></tr><tr><td>15 to 29 years old</td><td>16%</td><td>12%</td><td>14%</td><td>6%</td></tr><tr><td>30 to 44 years old</td><td>18%</td><td>20%</td><td>18%</td><td>20%</td></tr><tr><td>45 to 59 years old</td><td>22%</td><td>21%</td><td>23%</td><td>33%</td></tr><tr><td>60 to 74 years old</td><td>18%</td><td>37%</td><td>18%</td><td>30%</td></tr><tr><td>75 years old and over</td><td>6%</td><td>11%</td><td>9%</td><td>11%</td></tr><tr><td>Total (answered)</td><td>48%</td><td>49%</td><td>52%</td><td>48%</td></tr></tbody></table>

<table><thead><tr><th rowspan="2">Age groups</th><th colspan="2">Man</th><th colspan="2">Woman</th></tr><tr><th>2014</th><th>2018</th><th>2014</th><th>2018</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>0 to 14 years old</td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>15 to 29 years old</td><td>20%</td><td>12%</td><td>18%</td><td>6%</td></tr><tr><td>30 to 44 years old</td><td>22%</td><td>20%</td><td>22%</td><td>20%</td></tr><tr><td>45 to 59 years old</td><td>28%</td><td>21%</td><td>28%</td><td>33%</td></tr><tr><td>60 to 74 years old</td><td>22%</td><td>37%</td><td>21%</td><td>30%</td></tr><tr><td>75 years old and over</td><td>8%</td><td>11%</td><td>10%</td><td>11%</td></tr><tr><td>Total (answered)</td><td>48%</td><td>49%</td><td>52%</td><td>48%</td></tr></tbody></table>
Table 7. Distribution of respondents by gender and age in the 2018 survey and for the general population (INSEE 2014) by trying to focus only to adults' population

People aged between 60 and 74 are the most represented in the sample with 34%. The 45-59-year-old people follow with 27% of respondents. Then the 30 to 44-year-olds with 20%. For the 15 to 29-year-olds, their presence is lower in the sample. The remaining 9% are those aged 75 or over. Finally, 2% of respondents did not indicate their age. When we compare the population sample (845) to the total population of 38,260 people aged 15 or over (INSEE, 2014), we can see that our sample is underrepresented for the 15 to 29-year-olds and over-represented for the 60 to 74-year-olds (Table 7). Note that the comparison is somewhat biased, since the first class of the INSEE includes minors.

Overall, the distribution of men and women in each age group is fairly equitable. It should be noted that for the 45-59 age groups, women are slightly more represented.

Still by comparing the sample surveyed and the INSEE population (Table 8), we can see an over-representation of farmers (3% for the sample; 1% for the population), a slight over-representation of craftsmen, shopkeepers or business managers. However, manual workers and those with no socio-professional category are underrepresented in the sample. Managers or senior intellectual professions, intermediate professions and employees are evenly distributed within the sample.

<table><caption>Table 8. Distribution of respondents by socio-professional categories in the 2018 survey and for the general population (INSEE 2014)</caption><thead><tr><td>Socio-professional category</td><td>Population (INSEE 2014)</td><td>Survey (2018)</td></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>Farmer</td><td>1%</td><td>3%</td></tr><tr><td>Artisan, shopkeeper or business owner</td><td>7%</td><td>13%</td></tr><tr><td>Worker</td><td>9%</td><td>2%</td></tr><tr><td>Employee</td><td>18%</td><td>20%</td></tr><tr><td>Intermediate profession</td><td>23%</td><td>28%</td></tr><tr><td>Executive or senior intellectual profession</td><td>21%</td><td>24%</td></tr><tr><td>None</td><td>21%</td><td>6%</td></tr><tr><td>No answer</td><td>0</td><td>3%</td></tr></tbody></table>

In terms of working status, half of respondents' work, and 39% are retired (Table 9).

<table><caption>Table 9. Distribution of respondents by working status in the 2018 survey.</caption><thead><tr><td></td><td>Working status</td></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>Active</td><td>51%</td></tr><tr><td>Student</td><td>4%</td></tr><tr><td>House wife or father</td><td>2%</td></tr><tr><td>Retired</td><td>39%</td></tr><tr><td>No professional activity</td><td>4%</td></tr><tr><td>No information</td><td>0%</td></tr></tbody></table>

Finally, we aimed to verify the absence of an age effect in the sample surveyed regarding the distribution between the different types of information provided. As we can see in Table 10, the distribution of the age groups according to the type of information received is globally balanced, except for an over-representation of 45 to 59-year-olds in positive and neutral information.
<table><caption>Table 10. Distribution of respondents by socio-professional categories in the 2018 survey and for the general population (INSEE 2014).</caption><thead><tr><th>Age groups</th><th>No information</th><th>Neutral info</th><th>Positive info</th><th>Commitment</th><th>Total</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>15 to 29 years old</td><td>23</td><td>11%</td><td>29</td><td>9%</td><td>14</td><td>8%</td><td>13</td><td>9%</td><td>79</td></tr><tr><td>30 to 44 years old</td><td>39</td><td>19%</td><td>59</td><td>19%</td><td>33</td><td>19%</td><td>36</td><td>24%</td><td>167</td></tr><tr><td>45 to 59 years old</td><td>44</td><td>22%</td><td>90</td><td><strong>29%</strong></td><td>58</td><td><strong>33%</strong></td><td>33</td><td>22%</td><td>225</td></tr><tr><td>60 to 74 years old</td><td>76</td><td>37%</td><td>99</td><td>32%</td><td>52</td><td>30%</td><td>52</td><td>35%</td><td>279</td></tr><tr><td>75 years old and over</td><td>18</td><td>9%</td><td>26</td><td>8%</td><td>15</td><td>9%</td><td>13</td><td>9%</td><td>72</td></tr><tr><td>Uninformed</td><td>4</td><td>2%</td><td>7</td><td>2%</td><td>4</td><td>2%</td><td>2</td><td>1%</td><td>17</td></tr></tbody></table>

Table 11 details the structural analysis for the whole population (845 respondents), taking into account the three words (the word "non réponse" has been indicated for each of the words requested and for which no reply has been received).

<table><thead><tr><th>Structural analysis</th><th>Lemmatised words</th><th>Frequency</th><th>Relative frequency</th><th>Rank</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td rowspan="24">Contrasting elements</td><td>recyclage</td><td>175</td><td>9%</td><td>1,71</td></tr><tr><td>environnement</td><td>124</td><td>7%</td><td>1,90</td></tr><tr><td>Echo-à-EUT</td><td>121</td><td>6%</td><td>1,90</td></tr><tr><td>réseau-assainissement</td><td>77</td><td>4%</td><td>1,64</td></tr><tr><td>pollution</td><td>77</td><td>4%</td><td>1,78</td></tr><tr><td>eau-sale</td><td>55</td><td>3%</td><td>1,78</td></tr><tr><td>eau-propre</td><td>53</td><td>3%</td><td>1,75</td></tr><tr><td>eau</td><td>50</td><td>3%</td><td>1,58</td></tr><tr><td>économie-eau</td><td>48</td><td>3%</td><td>1,94</td></tr><tr><td>avis-positif</td><td>46</td><td>2%</td><td>1,80</td></tr><tr><td>procédé</td><td>41</td><td>2%</td><td>1,83</td></tr><tr><td>prix</td><td>39</td><td>2%</td><td>1,92</td></tr><tr><td>potable</td><td>36</td><td>2%</td><td>1,97</td></tr><tr><td>fosse-septique</td><td>24</td><td>1%</td><td>1,83</td></tr><tr><td>gestionnaire</td><td>17</td><td>1%</td><td>1,88</td></tr><tr><td>crointe</td><td>15</td><td>1%</td><td>1,73</td></tr><tr><td>gaspillage</td><td>13</td><td>1%</td><td>1,62</td></tr><tr><td>domestique</td><td>13</td><td>1%</td><td>1,69</td></tr><tr><td>jardin</td><td>13</td><td>1%</td><td>1,85</td></tr><tr><td>santé</td><td>13</td><td>1%</td><td>1,85</td></tr><tr><td>qualité</td><td>12</td><td>1%</td><td>1,67</td></tr><tr><td>boire</td><td>12</td><td>1%</td><td>1,75</td></tr><tr><td>respect-environnement</td><td>12</td><td>1%</td><td>1,83</td></tr><tr><td>dépollution</td><td>11</td><td>1%</td><td>1,45</td></tr><tr><td>pure</td><td>11</td><td>1%</td><td>1,91</td></tr><tr><td>hygiène</td><td>9</td><td>0%</td><td>1,89</td></tr><tr><td>fécal</td><td>8</td><td>0%</td><td>1,63</td></tr><tr><td>innovation</td><td>6</td><td>0%</td><td>1,67</td></tr><tr><td>développement-durable</td><td>5</td><td>0%</td><td>1,60</td></tr><tr><td>norme</td><td>3</td><td>0%</td><td>2,00</td></tr></tbody></table>
<table><tr><td></td><td>nettoyer</td><td>5</td><td>0%</td><td>1,80</td></tr><tr><td></td><td>anti-bactérien</td><td>4</td><td>0%</td><td>1,00</td></tr><tr><td></td><td>sanitaire</td><td>4</td><td>0%</td><td>1,75</td></tr><tr><td></td><td>anti-pollution</td><td>3</td><td>0%</td><td>1,33</td></tr><tr><td></td><td>avenir</td><td>3</td><td>0%</td><td>1,33</td></tr><tr><td></td><td>collectivité</td><td>3</td><td>0%</td><td>1,33</td></tr><tr><td></td><td>laver-linge</td><td>3</td><td>0%</td><td>1,67</td></tr><tr><td></td><td>masse-eau souterraine</td><td>3</td><td>0%</td><td>1,67</td></tr><tr><td></td><td>développement</td><td>2</td><td>0%</td><td>1,50</td></tr><tr><td></td><td>non-pollution</td><td>2</td><td>0%</td><td>1,50</td></tr><tr><td></td><td>normalité</td><td>2</td><td>0%</td><td>1,50</td></tr><tr><td></td><td>confiance</td><td>1</td><td>0%</td><td>1,00</td></tr><tr><td></td><td>invisible</td><td>1</td><td>0%</td><td>1,00</td></tr><tr><td></td><td>ménage</td><td>1</td><td>0%</td><td>1,00</td></tr><tr><td></td><td>non-calcaire</td><td>1</td><td>0%</td><td>1,00</td></tr><tr><td></td><td>non-usée</td><td>1</td><td>0%</td><td>1,00</td></tr><tr><td></td><td>pas-de-perte</td><td>1</td><td>0%</td><td>1,00</td></tr><tr><td>Core area</td><td>step</td><td>307</td><td>16%</td><td>1,47</td></tr><tr><td rowspan="20">Second periphery</td><td>wc</td><td>29</td><td>2%</td><td>2,03</td></tr><tr><td>dégout</td><td>27</td><td>1%</td><td>2,04</td></tr><tr><td>réseau</td><td>25</td><td>1%</td><td>2,20</td></tr><tr><td>polluant-organique</td><td>24</td><td>1%</td><td>2,25</td></tr><tr><td>procédé chimique</td><td>23</td><td>1%</td><td>2,30</td></tr><tr><td>polluant-chimique</td><td>22</td><td>1%</td><td>2,00</td></tr><tr><td>déchet</td><td>20</td><td>1%</td><td>2,35</td></tr><tr><td>masse-eau surface</td><td>19</td><td>1%</td><td>2,11</td></tr><tr><td>agriculture</td><td>17</td><td>1%</td><td>2,18</td></tr><tr><td>irrigation</td><td>15</td><td>1%</td><td>2,27</td></tr><tr><td>chlore</td><td>10</td><td>1%</td><td>2,00</td></tr><tr><td>se-laver</td><td>10</td><td>1%</td><td>2,00</td></tr><tr><td>procédé naturel</td><td>10</td><td>1%</td><td>2,20</td></tr><tr><td>usage</td><td>9</td><td>0%</td><td>2,00</td></tr><tr><td>stockage</td><td>9</td><td>0%</td><td>2,11</td></tr><tr><td>rejet</td><td>8</td><td>0%</td><td>2,00</td></tr><tr><td>non-potable</td><td>8</td><td>0%</td><td>2,13</td></tr><tr><td>procédé physique</td><td>8</td><td>0%</td><td>2,38</td></tr><tr><td>pénurie</td><td>7</td><td>0%</td><td>2,29</td></tr><tr><td>boue</td><td>6</td><td>0%</td><td>2,33</td></tr><tr><td>consommation</td><td>6</td><td>0%</td><td>2,33</td></tr><tr><td>risque-sanitaire</td><td>6</td><td>0%</td><td>2,33</td></tr><tr><td>cuisine</td><td>6</td><td>0%</td><td>2,50</td></tr><tr><td>avis-négatif</td><td>5</td><td>0%</td><td>2,00</td></tr><tr><td>produit</td><td>5</td><td>0%</td><td>2,00</td></tr><tr><td>ressource</td><td>5</td><td>0%</td><td>2,20</td></tr><tr><td>contrôle</td><td>4</td><td>0%</td><td>2,00</td></tr></table>
<table><caption>Table 11. Structural analysis of 3-words/expressions associated with 'treated wastewater'</caption><tr><td>distribution</td><td>4</td><td>0%</td><td>2,50</td></tr><tr><td>compétence</td><td>2</td><td>0%</td><td>2,00</td></tr><tr><td>information</td><td>2</td><td>0%</td><td>2,00</td></tr><tr><td>mal-traitée</td><td>2</td><td>0%</td><td>2,00</td></tr><tr><td>source</td><td>2</td><td>0%</td><td>2,00</td></tr><tr><td>adaptation</td><td>2</td><td>0%</td><td>2,50</td></tr><tr><td>nombreuse</td><td>2</td><td>0%</td><td>2,50</td></tr><tr><td>nuisance</td><td>2</td><td>0%</td><td>2,50</td></tr><tr><td>responsabilité</td><td>2</td><td>0%</td><td>2,50</td></tr><tr><td>pluvial</td><td>2</td><td>0%</td><td>3,00</td></tr><tr><td>prélèvement</td><td>2</td><td>0%</td><td>3,00</td></tr><tr><td>step-saturée</td><td>2</td><td>0%</td><td>3,00</td></tr><tr><td>besoin</td><td>1</td><td>0%</td><td>2,00</td></tr><tr><td>circulation</td><td>1</td><td>0%</td><td>2,00</td></tr><tr><td>collectif</td><td>1</td><td>0%</td><td>2,00</td></tr><tr><td>écoulement</td><td>1</td><td>0%</td><td>2,00</td></tr><tr><td>esthétique</td><td>1</td><td>0%</td><td>2,00</td></tr><tr><td>goût</td><td>1</td><td>0%</td><td>2,00</td></tr><tr><td>neuf</td><td>1</td><td>0%</td><td>2,00</td></tr><tr><td>pas-de-fosse-septique</td><td>1</td><td>0%</td><td>2,00</td></tr><tr><td>propriété</td><td>1</td><td>0%</td><td>2,00</td></tr><tr><td>rejet-eau-vaisselle</td><td>1</td><td>0%</td><td>2,00</td></tr><tr><td>toilette-sèche</td><td>1</td><td>0%</td><td>2,00</td></tr><tr><td>borne-incendie</td><td>1</td><td>0%</td><td>3,00</td></tr><tr><td>compteur-externe-gelé</td><td>1</td><td>0%</td><td>3,00</td></tr><tr><td>couleur</td><td>1</td><td>0%</td><td>3,00</td></tr><tr><td>élevage</td><td>1</td><td>0%</td><td>3,00</td></tr><tr><td>engagement</td><td>1</td><td>0%</td><td>3,00</td></tr><tr><td>Espagne</td><td>1</td><td>0%</td><td>3,00</td></tr><tr><td>inodore</td><td>1</td><td>0%</td><td>3,00</td></tr><tr><td>manque-infos</td><td>1</td><td>0%</td><td>3,00</td></tr><tr><td>mer</td><td>1</td><td>0%</td><td>3,00</td></tr><tr><td>station-service</td><td>1</td><td>0%</td><td>3,00</td></tr><tr><td>utopie</td><td>1</td><td>0%</td><td>3,00</td></tr><tr><td>volume</td><td>1</td><td>0%</td><td>3,00</td></tr></table>
<table><thead><tr><th rowspan="2"></th><th rowspan="2">Number of<br>occurrence</th><th colspan="2">Relative frequency</th><th rowspan="2">Rank</th></tr><tr><th>All</th><th>Without any answer<br>or "other words"</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>01_Cleanliness</td><td>71</td><td>2,8%</td><td>3,8%</td><td>1,77</td></tr><tr><td>02_Disgust</td><td>71</td><td>2,8%</td><td>3,8%</td><td>2,10</td></tr><tr><td>03_Contamination</td><td>195</td><td>7,7%</td><td>10,5%</td><td>1,90</td></tr><tr><td>04_Organoleptics & riparian nuisances</td><td>34</td><td>1,3%</td><td>1,8%</td><td>2,00</td></tr><tr><td>05_Environment</td><td>141</td><td>5,6%</td><td>7,6%</td><td>1,88</td></tr><tr><td>06_Cost</td><td>39</td><td>1,5%</td><td>2,1%</td><td>1,92</td></tr><tr><td>07_Minerals</td><td>0</td><td></td><td>0,0%</td><td></td></tr><tr><td>08_Use</td><td>107</td><td>4,2%</td><td>5,7%</td><td>2,06</td></tr><tr><td>09_Bottled water</td><td>0</td><td></td><td>0,0%</td><td></td></tr><tr><td>10_SavingWater</td><td>49</td><td>1,9%</td><td>2,6%</td><td>1,92</td></tr><tr><td>11_SimplyWater</td><td>50</td><td>2,0%</td><td>2,7%</td><td>1,58</td></tr><tr><td>12_TreatmentProcess & infrastructure</td><td>546</td><td>21,5%</td><td>29,3%</td><td>1,67</td></tr><tr><td>12ter_Treatment management</td><td>21</td><td>0,8%</td><td>1,1%</td><td>1,81</td></tr><tr><td><strong>13_Reuse</strong></td><td><strong>186</strong></td><td><strong>7,3%</strong></td><td><strong>10,0%</strong></td><td><strong>1,74</strong></td></tr><tr><td>14_PositiveAttributes</td><td>70</td><td>2,8%</td><td>3,8%</td><td>1,81</td></tr><tr><td>15_SourceOfTheWater</td><td>28</td><td>1,1%</td><td>1,5%</td><td>2,14</td></tr><tr><td>16_Apprehension</td><td>16</td><td>0,6%</td><td>0,9%</td><td>1,81</td></tr><tr><td>17_Potability</td><td>48</td><td>1,9%</td><td>2,6%</td><td>1,92</td></tr><tr><td>18_HealthSafety</td><td>48</td><td>1,9%</td><td>2,6%</td><td>1,69</td></tr><tr><td>19_XX_Scarcity</td><td>7</td><td>0,3%</td><td>0,4%</td><td>2,29</td></tr><tr><td>19_XX_TreatedWastewaterReference</td><td>121</td><td>4,8%</td><td>6,5%</td><td>1,90</td></tr><tr><td>19_XX_UnfavorableOpinion</td><td>21</td><td>0,8%</td><td>1,1%</td><td>1,90</td></tr><tr><td>Out of previous categories</td><td>9</td><td>0,4%</td><td></td><td>2,33</td></tr><tr><td>No answer</td><td>657</td><td>25,9%</td><td></td><td>2,52</td></tr></tbody></table>

2535

<table><caption>Table 12. Categorization of the 2535 words/expressions associated with 'treated wastewater' following Etale et al. (2020)'s classification.</caption><thead><tr><th></th><th>Strongly disagree</th><th>Disagree</th><th>Agree</th><th>Strongly agree</th><th>No opinion</th><th>No reply</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>Roundabouts</td><td>3%</td><td>11%</td><td>20%</td><td>64%</td><td>2%</td><td>0%</td></tr><tr><td>Golf courses</td><td>5%</td><td>10%</td><td>19%</td><td>63%</td><td>2%</td><td>1%</td></tr><tr><td>Parks and gardens</td><td>2%</td><td>7%</td><td>21%</td><td>69%</td><td>1%</td><td>0%</td></tr><tr><td>Shared gardens</td><td>4%</td><td>12%</td><td>24%</td><td>58%</td><td>2%</td><td>0%</td></tr><tr><td>Vineyards</td><td>8%</td><td>17%</td><td>28%</td><td>44%</td><td>3%</td><td>0%</td></tr><tr><td>Olive trees</td><td>7%</td><td>18%</td><td>28%</td><td>44%</td><td>2%</td><td>0%</td></tr><tr><td>Orchards</td><td>8%</td><td>18%</td><td>27%</td><td>45%</td><td>2%</td><td>0%</td></tr><tr><td>Livestock meadows</td><td>7%</td><td>16%</td><td>29%</td><td>45%</td><td>2%</td><td>0%</td></tr><tr><td>Market gardening</td><td>8%</td><td>19%</td><td>28%</td><td>43%</td><td>2%</td><td>0%</td></tr></tbody></table>

<caption>Table 13. Attitudes towards different irrigation uses of treated wastewater</caption>
<table><caption>Table 14. Intentions to use or buy (questions 5 to 8).</caption><thead><tr><th colspan="2">Public parks and gardens</th><th colspan="2">Fruits and vegetables</th><th></th><th></th><th></th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>No change</td><td>697</td><td>No change</td><td>573</td><td>No change</td><td>558</td><td>583</td></tr><tr><td>Yes</td><td>94</td><td>Stop buying</td><td>194</td><td>Stop buying</td><td>163</td><td>176</td></tr><tr><td>Maybe</td><td>50</td><td>Stop buying some products</td><td>63</td><td>Don't know</td><td>43</td><td>53</td></tr><tr><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td>No consumer</td><td>78</td><td>29</td></tr><tr><td>No reply</td><td>4</td><td>No reply</td><td>15</td><td>No reply</td><td>3</td><td>4</td></tr></tbody></table>

<table><caption>Table 15. Effect of information on attitudes and intention of attending public square irrigated with recycled water.</caption><thead><tr><th rowspan="2">Attitudes</th><th colspan="4">No information (N = 203)</th><th colspan="4">Information (N= 637)</th></tr><tr><th>Stop attending the square</th><th>Continue attending the square</th><th>May be continuing</th><th>Total</th><th>Stop attending the square</th><th>Continue attending the square</th><th>May be continuing</th><th>Total</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>Highly unfavorable</td><td>0%</td><td>1%</td><td>0%</td><td>2%</td><td>1%</td><td>0%</td><td>0%</td><td><strong>2%</strong></td></tr><tr><td>Rather unfavorable</td><td>1%</td><td>5%</td><td>1%</td><td>8%</td><td>2%</td><td>3%</td><td>2%</td><td><strong>6%</strong></td></tr><tr><td>Rather favorable</td><td>1%</td><td>19%</td><td>1%</td><td>22%</td><td>3%</td><td>16%</td><td>2%</td><td><strong>20%</strong></td></tr><tr><td>Highly favorable</td><td>9%</td><td>56%</td><td>2%</td><td>67%</td><td>5%</td><td>64%</td><td>2%</td><td><strong>70%</strong></td></tr><tr><td>Don't know</td><td>0%</td><td>0%</td><td>0%</td><td>1%</td><td>0%</td><td>1%</td><td>0%</td><td><strong>1%</strong></td></tr><tr><td><strong>Total</strong></td><td><strong>13%</strong></td><td><strong>82%</strong></td><td><strong>5%</strong></td><td><strong>100%</strong></td><td><strong>11%</strong></td><td><strong>83%</strong></td><td><strong>6%</strong></td><td><strong>100%</strong></td></tr></tbody></table>

<table><caption>Table 16. ‘On a scale from 1 to 4, how would you rate your environmental sensitivity to the environment?’ (question 9).</caption><tr><td>Insensitive</td><td>10</td></tr><tr><td>Not very sensitive</td><td>49</td></tr><tr><td>Sensitive</td><td>401</td></tr><tr><td>Very sensitive</td><td>369</td></tr><tr><td>Don't know</td><td>9</td></tr><tr><td>No reply</td><td>17</td></tr></table>

<table><caption>Table 17. Give your opinion on each of the following statements (question 10).</caption><thead><tr><th></th><th>Technology will help</th><th>Trust in people who decide</th><th>Disgust</th><th>No risk perception</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>Yes</td><td>444</td><td>464</td><td>121</td><td>369</td></tr><tr><td>No</td><td>147</td><td>95</td><td>587</td><td>233</td></tr><tr><td>Mixed</td><td>224</td><td>152</td><td>115</td><td>171</td></tr><tr><td>Don't know</td><td>26</td><td>127</td><td>16</td><td>66</td></tr><tr><td>No reply</td><td>4</td><td>7</td><td>6</td><td>6</td></tr></tbody></table>

<table><caption>Table 18. Sources of information (question 11).</caption><thead><tr><th></th><th>Daily</th><th>1 to several times a week</th><th>1 to 2 times a month</th><th>Never or very rarely</th><th>No reply</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>Newspaper or paper magazine</td><td>211</td><td>250</td><td>115</td><td>226</td><td>43</td></tr><tr><td>TV News</td><td>462</td><td>186</td><td>47</td><td>119</td><td>31</td></tr><tr><td>Web information</td><td>418</td><td>162</td><td>58</td><td>181</td><td>26</td></tr><tr><td>Radio</td><td>286</td><td>133</td><td>35</td><td>140</td><td>251</td></tr></tbody></table>
<table><caption>Table 19. Level of information of respondents (question 11 interpreted)</caption><thead><tr><th></th><th>Categorization</th><th>Number of respondents</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>Well informed</td><td>At least 2 media read/listened daily</td><td>437</td></tr><tr><td>Informed</td><td>At least 1 media read/listened daily</td><td>295</td></tr><tr><td>Mildly informed</td><td>At least 2 media read/listened one or twice a week</td><td>65</td></tr><tr><td>Poorly or no informed</td><td>The other answers</td><td>39</td></tr><tr><td>No reply</td><td>When no answer to any media sources</td><td>9</td></tr></tbody></table>

<table><caption>Table 20. Information level on districts' community events (questions 12 and 13).</caption><thead><tr><th></th><th>Regularly</th><th>Rarely</th><th>Never</th><th>No reply</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>Reading the intercommunal journal</td><td>478</td><td>164</td><td>192</td><td>11</td></tr><tr><td>Consulting the districts' community website</td><td>56</td><td>160</td><td>600</td><td>29</td></tr></tbody></table>
# Factorial analysis

Variables included in the Multiple Correspondence Analysis:

* Active.

* Binary variable: having previously informed on WWR or not before the survey.

* Gender.

* Age category.

* Socio-professional category

* Media information level

* Q9. Environmental sensitivity

* Q10. Technology trust.

* Q10. Decision makers' trust.

* Q10. Disgust.

* Q10. Risk.

* Q1. Representation of "treated wastewater": no (when no answer), poor (when only one word or words directly linked to the expression), rich (other cases).

* Q2. Binary variable: wrong reply ("river", "drinking water", "WWR") or correct (other cases/combinations).

* Illustrative. Q2 (details), Q4, Q6, Q7, Q8, Q15, words categorized with the Etale and al. classification.
<figure><img src="image_9.png" /><figcaption>Figure 4. Hierarchical clustering</figcaption></figure>
<table><caption>Figure 5. Details for the three classes (when the percentage is indicated in negative, it means that the value is statistically lower than in the total population, and conversely).</caption><thead><tr><th colspan="2">Class 1: 437 (54%)</th><th colspan="2">Opinions</th><th colspan="2">Intentions</th><th colspan="2">Socio-demographic variables</th><th colspan="2">Words</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>Previously informed</td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>Informed</td><td>81%</td><td>Disgust</td><td>no</td><td>95%</td><td>Fruits & vegetables</td><td>yes</td><td>87%</td><td>Media awareness</td><td>Well informed</td><td>59%</td><td>Water saving</td><td>yes 9%</td></tr><tr><td>Information (neutral)</td><td>41%</td><td>Perceived risk</td><td>no</td><td>67%</td><td>Wine</td><td>yes</td><td>83%</td><td></td><td>Mildly informed</td><td>-5%</td><td>Contamination</td><td>no 84%</td></tr><tr><td></td><td></td><td>Decision-makers' trust</td><td>yes</td><td>76%</td><td></td><td>No wine consumer</td><td>-7%</td><td>60-74 years old</td><td>yes</td><td>39%</td><td>Environment</td><td>yes 18%</td></tr><tr><td></td><td></td><td>Technology's trust</td><td>yes</td><td>62%</td><td>Cheese</td><td>yes</td><td>87%</td><td>&gt; 75 years old</td><td>yes</td><td>-8%</td><td>Positive attributes</td><td>yes 9%</td></tr><tr><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td>Non-working</td><td>yes</td><td>-2,50%</td><td>Source of water</td><td>no 98%</td></tr><tr><td></td><td></td><td>Environmental sensitivity</td><td>yes</td><td>96%</td><td>Wineyards' irrigation</td><td>Highly favorable</td><td>61%</td><td>Executive or intellectual profession</td><td>yes</td><td>30%</td><td>"Water"</td><td>no 96%</td></tr><tr><td></td><td></td><td>Irrigation though boreholes</td><td>no</td><td>75%</td><td>Market gardening irrigation</td><td>Highly favorable</td><td>61%</td><td>district of Teyran</td><td>yes</td><td>5%</td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td>Meadows' irrigation</td><td>Highly favorable</td><td>62%</td><td>district of Cazevieille</td><td>yes</td><td>-0,20%</td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td colspan="12" style="border-bottom: 2px solid black; padding: 0; height: 1px;"></td></tr><tr><th colspan="2">Class 3: 226 (28%)</th><th colspan="2">Opinions</th><th colspan="2">Intentions</th><th colspan="2">Socio-demographic variables</th><th colspan="2">Words</th></tr><tr><td>Previously informed</td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>no informed</td><td>37%</td><td>Disgust</td><td>mitigé</td><td>49%</td><td>Fruits & vegetables</td><td>Go somewhere else</td><td>35%</td><td>Media awareness</td><td>No or poorly info</td><td>12%</td><td>Contamination</td><td>yes 28%</td></tr><tr><td>Information (neutral)</td><td>-31%</td><td>Perceived risk</td><td>mitigé</td><td>73%</td><td></td><td>Go somewhere else for some products</td><td>15%</td><td></td><td>Mildly informed</td><td>15%</td><td>Water saving</td><td>no 98%</td></tr><tr><td></td><td></td><td>Decision-makers' trust</td><td>mitigé</td><td>55%</td><td></td><td>Don't know</td><td>3%</td><td></td><td>Well informed</td><td>-39%</td><td>Source of water</td><td>yes 6%</td></tr><tr><td></td><td></td><td>Technology's trust</td><td>mitigé</td><td>43%</td><td>Wine</td><td>no</td><td>30%</td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td>No word (first one)</td><td>yes -2%</td></tr><tr><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td>30-44 years old</td><td>yes</td><td>28%</td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td></td><td></td><td>Environmental sensitivity</td><td>no</td><td>12%</td><td>Cheese</td><td>no</td><td>35%</td><td>60-74 years old</td><td>yes</td><td>-25%</td><td>Rich representation</td><td>yes 80%</td></tr><tr><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td>Don't know</td><td>yes</td><td>61%</td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td>Don't know</td><td>yes</td><td>61%</td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td>Wineyards' irrigation</td><td>Woman</td><td>62%</td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td>Don't know</td><td>yes</td><td>26%</td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td>Highly opposed</td><td>yes</td><td>0%</td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td>Market gardening irrigation</td><td>Rather no</td><td>30%</td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td>Don't know</td><td>yes</td><td>5%</td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td>Meadows' irrigation</td><td>Don't know</td><td>5%</td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td>Don't know</td><td>yes</td><td>21%</td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td>Highly opposed</td><td>yes</td><td>11%</td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td>Rather yes</td><td>yes</td><td>34%</td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td colspan="12" style="border-bottom: 2px solid black; padding: 0; height: 1px;"></td></tr><tr><th colspan="2">Class 2: 139 (17%)</th><th colspan="2">Opinions</th><th colspan="2">Intentions</th><th colspan="2">Socio-demographic variables</th><th colspan="2">Words</th></tr><tr><td>Previously informed</td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>No specificity</td><td></td><td>Disgust</td><td>yes</td><td>53%</td><td>Fruits & vegetables</td><td>no</td><td>55%</td><td>Farmer</td><td>yes</td><td>16%(96%)</td><td>No word (first one)</td><td>yes 20%</td></tr><tr><td></td><td></td><td>Perceived risk</td><td>yes</td><td>71%</td><td>Wine</td><td>no</td><td>45%</td><td>Employee</td><td>yes</td><td>-14%</td><td>No 3 words</td><td>yes 60%</td></tr><tr><td></td><td></td><td>Decision-makers' trust</td><td>no</td><td>43%</td><td>Cheese</td><td>no</td><td>47%</td><td>Executive or intellectual profession</td><td>yes</td><td>-17%</td><td>Environment</td><td>no 94%</td></tr><tr><td></td><td></td><td>Technology's trust</td><td>no</td><td>32%</td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td>"Water"</td><td>yes 7%</td></tr><tr><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td>Wineyards' irrigation</td><td>Highly opposed</td><td>yes</td><td>24%</td><td>Positive attributes</td><td>no 97%</td></tr><tr><td></td><td></td><td>Environmental sensitivity</td><td>no</td><td>17%</td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td>Rather no</td><td>yes</td><td>-6%</td><td>Reuse</td><td>no 86%</td></tr><tr><td></td><td></td><td>Collective irrigation network</td><td>no</td><td>70%</td><td>Market gardening irrigation</td><td>Highly opposed</td><td>23%</td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td>Treatment process and infrastructure</td><td>no 60%</td></tr><tr><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td>Meadows' irrigation</td><td>Highly opposed</td><td>20%</td><td>Retired</td><td>yes</td><td>53%</td><td>Water saving</td><td>yes -0%</td></tr><tr><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td>Rather no</td><td>yes</td><td>0%</td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td>Media awareness</td><td>Mildly informed</td><td>-1%</td><td></td><td></td></tr></tbody></table>