Social, technological and contextual

influences on water end uses in SEQ

Cara BealSouth East Queensland Residential End Use Project

14 September 2011

Urban Water Security Research Alliance

PRESENTATION SCOPE

• Background and benefits of water end use

studies

• Aims of study

• Methods

• Challenges faced with weather and

equipment

• Summary of results

• Conclusions and policy recommendations

BACKGROUND

BACKGROUND

• During the recent drought, successful demand

management strategies in SEQ led to low

residential water consumption (Target 140) –

but “reactionary”

BACKGROUND

• Without knowing how the water is used and where it

is being used in a home, how can you manage its

demand and encourage relevant water conservation

strategies?

Yes, sure…but where? How?

!!!

• Smart metering technology is

rapidly developing – used in

end use studies (both energy

and water)

• Water end use studies are becoming more

commonplace in Australia and overseas in the quest

to better understand urban water consumption and

demand strategies

BACKGROUND

BACKGROUND

• Smart metering and resultant end use analysis can

facilitate a proactive approach to demand

management

– Targeted rebate / water efficiency programmes based on

known high water use appliances and/or demographic

groups

– Demand forecasting models based on current and accurate

measured data

– Increased cost efficiency in conservation programs,

distribution infrastructure etc.

STUDY AIMS

• Quantify and characterise mains water end uses

during winter and summer

• Identify end use volumes and trends:

– socio-demographic categories,

– water efficient stock (eg, star rated clothes

washers, low flow shower head)

– peak, diurnal, seasonal timeframes

• Comparative analysis of measured end uses with

other existing data

RESEARCH METHODS

STUDY AREAS

Sunshine Coast Regional Council

(Noosa, Caloundra, Maroochy)

Brisbane City Council

Ipswich City

Council

Gold Coast

Methods• Mixed method approach

• Rely on both participant involvement and advanced technology

Taken from

aligned SSA

project

Methods – Trace flow analysis

Trace Wizard™ software from Aquacraft Inc.

Washing Machine

Shower

Toilet

full

flush

Tap

Leak

Toilet

half

flush

Readings

Dates Comments End use

analysis

Winter 2010 14/6/10 to 28/6/10 Yes

Summer 2010-

2011

1/12/10 to 14/12/10

24/12/10 to 6/1/11

6/2/11 to 21/2/11

School holidays

Christmas/New Year

Business as usual

Yes

Winter 2011 1/6/11 to 15/6/11 Currently

underway

• Summer 2011 > double long term average

• 6th wettest for QLD on record-111 years!! (2nd wettest for Aust.)

• No requirements for irrigation

89.583.1

68.350.4

36.7 40.1

80.1

96.1

137.0159.5

165.1

78.4

43.8

10.6

38.6

116.496.6

389

55.6

442.4

391.0

188.0

0

50

100

150

200

250

300

350

400

450

500

Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Jan Feb

Mo

nth

ly ra

infa

ll (m

m)

April 2010 to February 2011

Average (1905 to 2009) SEQREUS

WINTER READ

SUMMER READ

Not an ideal summer!

RESULTS

Results – sample sizes and usage distributions

Gold Coast Brisbane Ipswich Sunshine Coast All regionsWinter Summer Winter Summer Winter Summer Winter Summer Winter Summer

87 68 61 64 37 31 67 56 252 219

0%

25%

50%

75%

100%

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

14

16

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90

100

110

120

130

140

150

160

170

180

190

200

210

220

230

240

250

260

270

280

290

300

500

700

Cu

mu

lati

ve d

istr

ibu

tio

n

Fre

qu

en

cy d

istr

ibu

tio

n

Per capita water consumption (L/p/d)

Summer frequency distribution Winter frequency distribution

Summer cumulative curve Winter cumulative curve

RESULTS –

Water End Use Breakdowns

Results – winter and summer

SUMMER

Sample size: 219 homes

Av. total: 125.3 L/p/d & 316 L/hh/d

QWC per capita: av.154 (149 to 167) L/p/d

WINTER

Sample size: 252 homes

Av. total: 145.3 L/p/d & 370.7 L/hh/d

QWC per capita: av 154 L/p/d

Results – winter and summer – per capita

Results – winter and summer – per household

RESULTS –

Effect of water efficient

technology on consumption

46.8 45.142.5

37.335.5

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

50

AN

NU

AL

WA

TE

R

CO

NSU

MP

TIO

N

CW

: fro

nt

cold

on

ly

Tap

s, a

era

tor

use

Sho

we

r,e

ffic

ien

t he

ads

Sho

we

r,d

isp

lay

mo

nit

ors

An

nu

al w

ater

co

nsu

mp

tio

n [k

L/p

/y]

Solution

CW DW Taps Shower Total

Results – water intervention scenarios

Results – water efficient technology impacts

RESULTS –

Water end uses and socio-

demographical trends

Results – socio-demographic trends

65.4

53.746.5

42.7 43.8 41.650.2

1.8

2.3

3.0

3.3 3.2 3.2

2.6

0.0

0.5

1.0

1.5

2.0

2.5

3.0

3.5

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

140

160

180

< 3

0

30

-5

9

60

-8

9

90

-1

19

12

0 -

14

9

>1

50

No

res

po

nse

Ave

rage

pe

op

le p

er

ho

use

ho

ld

Ave

rage

tota

l h

ou

seh

old

wat

er

use

(L/

p/d

)

Income category ($ '000)

Per capita water use (left axis)

Average age (years)

Persons per household (right axis)

Results – perceptions of water use

Results – perceptions of water use

*

Results – perceptions of water use

*

*

*

Results – Perception of water use - profiles

• Careful with generalisations: sample size, respondent only, non-seasonal..…but…

Perceived high water users:

• potentially overestimate water use;

• older, smaller families, fewer

children;

• lower incomes and education level;

• less water efficient technology;

• strong self-identity as water saver;

and

• strong belief that household is a

water conserving one.

Perceived low-medium water users:

• potentially under estimate water use;

• younger, larger families, children;

• less aware of high usage periods

during day;

• higher incomes and education level;

• more water efficient technology;

• lower self-identity as water saver; and

• less of a belief that household is a

water conserving one.

Conclusions – perception of water use

• Curtailment as well as Efficiency water conserving behaviours are required for “under-estimators” e.g. emphasis on frugal water use and not just relying on technology

“a low flow shower head doesn’t mean you can have

a 30 minute shower!”

“low flow taps still need to be turned off!”

“a four star rated clothes washing machine should

still only be turned on when full!”

RESULTS –

Water end uses and energy

demand

35.153.3

214.7

486.6

0.011.5 0.0 0.0

40.0CW

DW

Taps

Shower

Toilet

Bathtub

Irrigation

Leaks

Water treatment

Results – energy / water demand scenarios

Annual average carbon emissions [Kg CO2/Kwh/year]

1293

736 707675

626568

459 422 413

0

200

400

600

800

1000

1200

1400

AN

NU

AL

ENER

GY

CO

NSU

MP

TIO

N

HW

S: e

lect

ric

bo

ost

ed s

ola

r

CW

: fro

nt

cold

on

ly

Sho

wer

38

˚

Sho

wer

35

˚

Tap

s, a

erat

or

use

Sho

wer

,eff

icie

nt

hea

ds

Sho

wer

, dis

pla

y m

on

ito

rs

Dis

hw

ash

ers,

3.5

+4 e

. s. r

. on

ly

An

nu

al e

ner

gy c

on

sum

pti

on

[kW

h/p

/y]

Solution

CW DW Taps Shower Total

Results – energy intervention scenarios

CONCLUSIONS AND

BEYOND

Conclusions from SEQREUS

• Rebound effect yet to be clearly seen – winter 2011 data to confirm

• Shower, clothes washing machines, taps contribute most to total household use

- this is area for targeted conservation strategies

• Regional differences – Sunshine Coast higher water users than Ipswich participants (per capita and per household)

• Socio-economic differences – high income and high occupancy families tend to use less water (per capita)

• Water efficient technology can reduce peak morning flows by up to 20%

Conclusions from SEQREUS

• Water efficient appliances appear to reduce household water use. Low flow shower heads and high star-rated washing machines particularly effective…..however…..

• Perception of low-average water user not always reflected by actual water use.

- Water efficient technology has to be matched with water efficient behaviour ….area for water demand managers to consider

• Initial exploration of water/energy demand shows intervention strategies aimed at reducing hot water usage and/or type of HWS key area for reducing carbon footprint

Final comprehensive report covering:

• winter and summer end use breakdown

• stock efficiency v end use

• end use diurnal patterns and seasonal demand

• socio-demographic predictors of end use

• water-energy demand relationships and intervention strategies

• extensive set of descriptive statistics

• low flow volumes and non-registered water loss

Wrapping it up….

Future of SEQREUS

• Finalising negotiations for a new SEQREUS study for next two years (2012-2013) with QUU, Unity Water and QWC

• Build on current SEQREUS, greater representation of seasonal data, rebound effect from drought, diurnal analysis

• Journal publications still to come: Journal of Cleaner Production, Resources, Conservation and Recycling, Water Science and Technology: Water Supply, Science of the Total Environment

• IWA World Congress on Water, Climate and Energy, Dublin, May 2012

Acknowledgements

• Project Leader - Assoc. Prof Rodney Stewart

• Dr Kelly Fielding and SSA Team

• Lisa Stewart, Chris Bennet, Byron Carragher,

Edoardo Bertone, Dr Andrew Huang, Anas Makki

at Smart Water Research Centre

• All the participants

• Don and Sharon 1 and Sharon 2!

Urban Water Security Research Alliance

THANK YOU

www.urbanwateralliance.org.au