Water Resources Management

, Volume 28, Issue 4, pp 1111–1125 | Cite as

Adapting to Less Water: Household Willingness to Pay for Decentralised Water Systems in Urban Australia

  • Sorada TapsuwanEmail author
  • Michael Burton
  • Aditi Mankad
  • David Tucker
  • Murni Greenhill


In South East Queensland (SEQ), extended periods of drought and unprecedented population growth have resulted in a water strategy reliant on permanent water conservation measures. As a result, there has been increasing emphasis on the installation of decentralised water systems at the household level, in particular, rainwater tanks and greywater systems to ease the water shortage stress. Results from a survey of 590 households in SEQ reveal that willingness to pay (WTP) for rainwater tanks and greywater systems range from $800 to $7,400 and from $1,700 to $14,100, respectively. When compared to the actual market price, WTP is substantially lower and subsidies will be required to encourage adoption. Nonetheless, a subsidy of $500 can lead to 100 % uptake of greywater diversion devices. Hence, the policy implication is that not all devices are preferred and subsidising greywater diversion devices would lead to the highest level of uptake with the least amount of subsidy spending.


Rainwater Greywater Rebate Subsidy Rainfall Policy 


  1. ABS (2006) Census Data. Australian Bureau of Statistics, CanberraGoogle Scholar
  2. ABS (2009) Queensland water and energy use and conservation. Australian Bureau of StatisticsGoogle Scholar
  3. Bateman IJ et al (2002) Economic valuation with stated preference techniques: a manual. Edward Elgar, CheltenhamCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Beal C, Sharma A, Gardner T, Chong M (2012) A desktop analysis of potable water savings from internally plumbed rainwater tanks in South-East Queensland, Australia. Water Resour Manag 26(6):1577–1590CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Ben-Akiva M et al (1999) Extended framework for modeling choice behavior. Mark Lett 10(3):187–203CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Bennett J (1999) Some Fundamentals of Environmental Choice Modelling. University of New South Wales, CanberraGoogle Scholar
  7. Cook S, Tjandraatmadja T, Ho A, Sharma A (2009) Definition of Decentralised Systems in the South East Queensland Context. CSIRO: Water for a Healthy Country National Research FlagshipGoogle Scholar
  8. DERM (2011). Drilling for water, Available at, Accessed March 2012
  9. DIP (2009) Population and housing fact sheet. Queensland GovernmentGoogle Scholar
  10. DIP (2010) Water savings targets. Queensland GovernmentGoogle Scholar
  11. Ghisi E (2010) Parameters influencing the sizing of rainwater tanks for use in houses. Water Resour Manag 24(10):2381–2403CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Gordon J, Chapman R, Blamey R (2001) Assessing the Options for the Canberra Water Supply: An Apllication of Choice Modelling. In: Bennett JBR (ed) The Choice Modelling Approach to Environmental Valuation. Edward Elgar, CheltenhamGoogle Scholar
  13. Grothmann T, Patt A (2005) Adaptive capacity and human cognition: the process of individual adaptation to climate change. Global Environ Change Part A, 15(3):199--213Google Scholar
  14. Louviere JJ, Eagle T (2006) Confound it! that pesky little scale constant messes up our convenient assumptions. proceedings of the sawtooth software conference 2006. Sawtooth Software Inc, Sequim, pp 211–228Google Scholar
  15. Magidson J, Vermunt JK (2007) Removing the scale factor confound in multinomial logit choice models to obtain better estimates of preference. October 2007 Sawtooth Software Conference ProceedingsGoogle Scholar
  16. Mankad A, Tapsuwan S (2011) Review of socio-economic drivers of community acceptance and adoption of decentralised water systems. J Environ Manag 92(3):380–391CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Mankad A, Tucker D, Tapsuwan S, Greenhill M (2010) Qualitative exploration of beliefs, values and knowledge associated with decentralised water supplies in South East Queensland communities, BrisbaneGoogle Scholar
  18. Mankad A, Chong M et al (2012) Examining biophysical and socio-demographic factors across mandated tank users in Urban Australia: a linking step towards achieving best practices. Water Resour Manag 26(7):1983–1998CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Marks J, Cromar N, Fallowfield H (2003) Community experience and perceptions of water reuse. Water Sci Technol 3(3):9–16Google Scholar
  20. Martin WE, Martin IM, Kent B (2009) The role of risk perceptions in the risk mitigation process: the case of wildfire in high risk communities. J Env Manag 91(2):489--498Google Scholar
  21. Mulilis JP, Lippa R (1990) Behavioral change in earthquake preparedness due to negative threat appeals: a test of protection motivation theory. J Appl Soc Psychol 20(8):619--638Google Scholar
  22. Muthén, Muthén (2010) Mplus version 6, base program combination add-On (32-bit). Muthén & Muthén, Los AngelesGoogle Scholar
  23. QWC (2012) Efficient irrigation for water conservation guideline. Available at, Accessed March 2012
  24. Rogers RW (1975) A protection motivation theory of fear appeals and attitude change. J Psychol 91(1):93--114Google Scholar
  25. Rogers RW (1983) Cognitive and physiological processes in attitude change: A revised theory of protection motivation. In: Cacioppo J, Petty R (eds) Social Psychophysiology. Guilford Press, New York, pp 153–176Google Scholar
  26. Ryan AM, Spash CL, Measham TG (2009) Socio-economic and psychological predictors of domestic greywater and rainwater collection: Evidence from Australia. J Hydrol 379(1–2):164–171CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Spash CL et al (2009) Motives behind willingness to pay for improving biodiversity in a water ecosystem: Economics, ethics and social psychology. Ecol Econ 68(4):955–964CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Train K (2009) Discrete choice methods with simulation. Cambridge University PressGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht 2014

Authors and Affiliations

  • Sorada Tapsuwan
    • 1
    Email author
  • Michael Burton
    • 2
  • Aditi Mankad
    • 3
  • David Tucker
    • 1
  • Murni Greenhill
    • 1
  1. 1.CSIRO Ecosystem SciencesWembleyAustralia
  2. 2.School of Agricultural & Resource Economics, Faculty of Natural & Agricultural SciencesUniversity of Western AustraliaCrawleyAustralia
  3. 3.CSIRO Ecosystem SciencesBrisbaneAustralia

Personalised recommendations