Low-flow showerhead : phase 2
Creators: name: Fung, Waimond
name: Nowicki, Steven
name: Baker, Joshua
name: Liu, Oliver
Publisher: name: The University of British Columbia
Year: 2015

description: The purpose of this report is to review the phase 1 report’s findings, and expand on their results and methodologies. The report determines user satisfaction from the assigned residence (Marine Drive Residence), and determines a suitable low-flow showerhead replacement based on price point, previous studies, technical specifications, and a triple bottom line (TBL) assessment. Based on the phase 1 report, the recommended showerheads did not satisfy the price point of $35. Unfortunately, this meant that their decision had to be disregarded in our research. Our team chose two shower heads: WaterPik ETC-411 and Pfister 015-LC0C. The WaterPik, priced at $15.77 during the time of this report, has a Watersense certification, a gallon per minute (GPM) of 1.6, four spray patterns, a swivel feature, and a limited lifetime warranty. The Pfister has a GPM of 1.5, three spray patterns, a self cleaning nozzle, and a lifetime warranty. The showerhead is priced at $28.06 during the writing of this report. During the shower head selection process, our TBL assessment was incomplete due to the fact that the social aspect of the assessment requires a user satisfaction survey. The phase 1 report had their showerheads tested out in fraternities. Our team believed that the results were heavily biased towards the male population, and could affect the overall results. Our test locations were chosen at the sites where they will be installed in the future. We were assigned to the Marine Drive residence with four test locations. During the installation of the showerhead, the technicians reported the WaterPik to have the best build quality, the best spray pattern, and an install time of seven minutes. The Pfister was reported to have bad build quality, fear of cracking during adjustment, installation, and a install time of five minutes. Each showerhead was given approximately seven days for the users to try. Afterwards, surveys were administered to the users. The users at the Marine Drive residence did not like the original showerhead. The main concerns were adjustability and pressure. The results concluded that the WaterPik netted the highest user satisfaction even though it netted a score of 3 out of 5 from the spray pattern and water pressure satisfaction. The Pfister was not well received even though the price of the showerhead is almost twice of the WaterPik, and performed even worse than the original showerhead. Based on our TBL assessment, we recommend the WaterPik ETC-411. It is an exceptional shower head with a very low cost. The Watersense certification allows us and the users to be confident that it really is eco-friendly. The build quality reported by the installation technicians lends confidence to the fact that it will have a long lifecycle. Most importantly, it achieved a perfect score for user satisfaction in our survey. It achieves a better spray and water pressure score than the original shower head despite having a very low GPM. The showerhead also has adjustable options such as angle of the nozzle head and 4 spray patterns. In our surveys, we also determined that the average user spends 55 minutes in the showers per week. This means only 88 gallons of water is used instead of the minimum 137 gallons that would be used on a non-low-flow showerhead, which equates to about 35% water savings. To take an extra step in conserving water, our group suggests users are educated on how to use the showerhead efficiently (setting the spray patterns, adjusting the nozzle angle). The stakeholders can also educate the tenants on the benefits of saving water, and install a water usage meter to inform users how much water they are using each shower session. Disclaimer: “UBC SEEDS provides students with the opportunity to share the findings of their studies, as well as their opinions, conclusions and recommendations with the UBC community. The reader should bear in mind that this is a student project/report and is not an official document of UBC. Furthermore readers should bear in mind that these reports may not reflect the current status of activities at UBC. We urge you to contact the research persons mentioned in a report or the SEEDS Coordinator about the current status of the subject matter of a project/report.”